wetlands management: a review of policies and practices€¦ · creek watersheds (bruneau, 2015b)...
TRANSCRIPT
Susanna Bruneau Research & Stewardship Coordinator March 2017
Wetlands Management: A Review of Policies and Practices
Watershed Management Plan: Land Management Component
Serving the Battle River and Sounding Creek watersheds
in Alberta
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
2 | P a g e
Suggested Citation: Bruneau, S. (2017). Wetland Management: A review of policies
and practices. Camrose, Alberta: Battle River Watershed Alliance.
Front Cover: Wetland near Ferintosh, AB
Back Cover: Small lake in Miquelon Lake Provincial Park
This report contains information that may be subject to future revisions. Persons wishing
to use this information in any form may want to contact the Battle River Watershed
Alliance to ensure they have the most recent version.
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
3 | P a g e
Executive Summary
As part of the Battle River Watershed Alliance’s dedication to the development of the
Watershed Management Plan (WMP), policy research and development will be
undertaken for each of the main watershed management components. This report is the
background policy research for the wetland component of the WMP.
To develop effective policies and guidelines encouraging compliance on a voluntary
basis, knowledge of the policies, guidelines, and monitoring resources that exist as
potential support measures is crucial. Policies and guidelines set out by various sectors
that affect wetlands on the international to the local level are outlined and discussed.
Many policies pertain to beneficial management practices for the agricultural sector,
addressing economic drivers of wetland loss, and support for wetland restoration and
conservation is paramount.
Currently, most municipalities in the Battle River and Sounding Creek watersheds do not
have wetland management plans, polices, or bylaws. Most programs and policies
pertaining to wetlands occur at the provincial/state and federal level through several
different ministries. The majority of these programs and policies focus on addressing
agricultural wetland challenges, with emerging assistance for municipalities.
Some international agencies and governments have developed polices and
recommendations regarding wetland management policies, plans, and programs. With a
changing climate comes increased uncertainty as well as increasingly extreme weather.
Wetlands play an important role in managing water in extreme events by reducing the
severity of those events while keeping the health of the landscape. As such, these can be
used to create policy recommendations specific to the Battle River and Sounding Creek
watersheds.
Wetland management is not a new concept, especially to agricultural producers who
manage ongoing challenges. Wetlands offer naturalized solutions to waste and storm
water issues in growing urban areas. Selecting regionally appropriate management
methods and monitoring effectiveness of those methods through the adaptive
management process is the most effective way to promote implementation.
Ongoing education to address differing societal values in relation to wetlands is needed as
strategic restoration and conversation efforts continue. From landowners and the public,
to government commitments and polices, all need to be held accountable and empowered
to ensure wetlands continue as an important part of our watershed.
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
4 | P a g e
Table of Contents
Executive Summary....................................................................................................... 3
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................... 4
Table of Figures ............................................................................................................. 7
List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................... 8
1 Introduction and Background ............................................................................... 9
1.1 Overview and Purpose of Document .................................................................. 9
1.2 Battle River Watershed Alliance ........................................................................ 9
1.3 Battle River Watershed .................................................................................... 13
1.3.1 Location of the Battle River watershed......................................................... 13
1.3.2 Natural landscape of the Battle River Watershed. ......................................... 14
1.4 Sounding Creek Watershed .............................................................................. 15
1.4.1 Location of the Sounding Creek Watershed. ................................................ 15
1.4.2 Natural Landscape of the Sounding Creek Watershed. ................................. 15
2 Wetlands ............................................................................................................... 16
2.1 Definitions ....................................................................................................... 16
2.1.1 What is a wetland? ....................................................................................... 16
2.1.2 Types of wetlands ........................................................................................ 17
2.2 Importance of Wetlands ................................................................................... 18
2.3 Wetland Loss and Cumulative Impacts ............................................................ 19
3 Battle River and Sounding Creek Wetlands ....................................................... 22
3.1 Prairie Pothole Region .................................................................................... 22
3.2 Wetlands of the Battle River & Sounding Creek Watersheds ............................ 23
3.2.1 Wetland Inventories ..................................................................................... 25
4 Land Use ............................................................................................................... 29
4.1 Agriculture ...................................................................................................... 29
4.2 Urban and Rural Development ........................................................................ 32
4.2.1 Naturalized Stormwater and Wastewater Ponds ........................................... 32
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
5 | P a g e
4.3 Industry ........................................................................................................... 33
4.3.1 Gravel Mining ............................................................................................. 34
4.3.2 Oil and Gas .................................................................................................. 34
4.4 Land Use Planning .......................................................................................... 34
4.4.1 Land Use Framework and Regional Plans .................................................... 35
4.4.2 Municipal .................................................................................................... 36
4.5 Buffers ............................................................................................................. 36
5 Ecosystem Functions ............................................................................................ 40
5.1 Biodiversity and Habitat .................................................................................. 40
5.2 Water Quality .................................................................................................. 42
5.3 Water Quantity ................................................................................................ 43
5.3.1 Wetland Drainage, Consolidation, and Surface water Connectivity .............. 44
5.4 Groundwater Connectivity............................................................................... 45
5.5 Carbon Storage ............................................................................................... 47
6 Ecosystem Services ............................................................................................... 48
6.1 Valuation and Ecological Services .................................................................. 48
6.2 Human Health and Wellbeing .......................................................................... 49
6.3 Cultural Values ............................................................................................... 50
6.3.1 Recreation ................................................................................................... 51
6.4 Payment for Ecosystem Services ...................................................................... 52
7 Additional Challenges in Wetland Management ................................................ 53
7.1 Beavers ........................................................................................................... 53
7.2 Mosquitoes and Wetlands ................................................................................ 54
7.3 Invasive Species .............................................................................................. 54
7.4 Wetlands and Climate Change ......................................................................... 56
8 Governance and Legislation................................................................................. 58
8.1 Federal............................................................................................................ 58
8.2 Provincial ....................................................................................................... 60
8.2.1 Alberta ......................................................................................................... 60
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
6 | P a g e
8.2.2 Saskatchewan .............................................................................................. 65
8.2.3 Manitoba ..................................................................................................... 66
8.3 International ................................................................................................... 67
8.3.1 North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP)........................... 67
8.3.2 United States................................................................................................ 67
8.3.3 Ramsar Convention...................................................................................... 73
9 Conservation and Restoration ............................................................................. 75
9.1 Wetland Restoration in Battle River and Sound Creek Watersheds .................. 75
9.2 Reverse Auctions ............................................................................................. 78
9.3 Prioritising Wetlands and Regional Wetland Objectives .................................. 78
9.4 Wetland Mapping ............................................................................................ 80
9.5 Carbon offset credits ....................................................................................... 80
10 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 81
10.1 Data Gaps and Future Directions.................................................................... 81
10.1.1 Wetland Inventories ................................................................................. 81
10.1.2 Land Use Planning ................................................................................... 82
10.1.3 Restoration and Conservation ................................................................... 82
10.2 Summary ......................................................................................................... 83
Literature Cited ........................................................................................................... 84
Appendix A ................................................................................................................ 112
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
7 | P a g e
Table of Figures
Figure 1. Counties within the Battle River Watershed Alliance planning area with county
boundaries. .................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 2. Framework for watershed management planning components in the Battle
River and Sounding Creek watersheds. .......................................................................... 11
Figure 3. Adaptive management planning cycle for watershed management planning in
the Battle River and Sounding Creek watersheds ........................................................... 12
Figure 4. Policy research and development process. ...................................................... 13
Figure 5. Battle River and Sounding Creek watersheds within Alberta. ......................... 14
Figure 6. Plant and water zones for various prairie wetland classes using the Stewat and
Kantrud (1971) system. ................................................................................................. 18
Figure 7. Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) in Canada and the United States ....................... 22
Figure 8. Wetland type distribution in Alberta ............................................................... 23
Figure 9. The proportion of land in Alberta classified as wetland .................................. 24
Figure 10. Green and White Management Areas in Alberta. .......................................... 25
Figure 11. Iron Creek subwatershed wetland inventory. ................................................ 27
Figure 12. Battle River and Sounding Creek wetland inventories as of 2009. ................ 28
Figure 13. Critical Function and Protection Zones. ........................................................ 37
Figure 14. Diagram of the water balance components of a prairie wetland. .................... 44
Figure 15. Diagram of groundwater flow under wetlands. ............................................. 46
Figure 16. Wetland Management Districts of states in the PPR ..................................... 70
Figure 17. Ducks Unlimited Canada projects in the a) Battle River and b) Sounding
Creek watersheds........................................................................................................... 77
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
8 | P a g e
List of Acronyms
AAMDC Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties
ABWRET-A Alberta Wetland Rapid Evaluation Tool - Actual
AEP Alberta Environment and Parks
ALUS Alternative Land Use Services
AUMA Alberta Urban Municipalities Association
AWE Agriculture Watershed Enhancement
BMP Beneficial management practices
CE Conservation Easement
DUC Ducks Unlimited Canada
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ER Environmental Reserve
ES Ecosystem Services
NAWMP North American Waterfowl Management Plan
PPR Prairie Pothole Region
WMD Wetland Management Districts
WPAC Watershed Planning and Advisory Council
WRRP Watershed Resiliency and Restoration Program
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
9 | P a g e
1 Introduction and Background
1.1 Overview and Purpose of Document
The role of policy is to provide overall strategic direction we want society to go towards.
Policies include formal policies, such as government policies or policies from various
organizations, as well as informal policies, such as beneficial management practices
(BMPs) programs and other forms of governance. The purpose of this report is to
highlight the policies, governance approaches, and management approaches that are
currently in place locally, regionally, provincially, federally, and internationally that
could support and contribute to the development of policy recommendations and action
as they pertain to the management of wetlands in the Battle River Watershed Alliance
planning area.
Riparian management is a vital component of wetland management. Loss of, and impacts
to, riparian areas around wetlands decreases their ability for healthy functioning. The
removal of riparian areas reduces in the ability of wetlands to filter, percolate, buffer, and
retain water. Riparian areas and vegetated buffers are explicitly discussed only in part
within this document. This report is about the management of wetlands as a whole on the
landscape. For more information on the management of riparian areas, please see
Understanding the Policy Context for Riparian Areas in the Battle River and Sounding
Creek Watersheds (Bruneau, 2015b) report and accompanying documents.
This report is designed to be read and applied in conjunction with the additional wetland
documents, Wetlands Management: Policy Advice and Wetland Management:
Implementation Guidelines.
1.2 Battle River Watershed Alliance
The Battle River Watershed Alliance (BRWA) was created in 2006 as a non-profit
society. Under the Water for Life: Alberta’s Strategy for Sustainability, the BRWA was
selected by Alberta Environment and Parks (then Alberta Environment) as the designated
Watershed Planning and Advisory Council (WPAC) for the Battle River watershed
(Figure 1). The planning area for the Battle River Watershed Alliance begins just west of
Highway 2 at Battle Lake, and continues east to the Alberta-Saskatchewan border (Figure
5). The planning area boundary is defined as the portion of the Battle River watershed
that lies within Alberta.
The BRWA works in partnership with communities, watershed stewardship groups, four
orders of government (first nations, municipal, provincial, federal), industry, non-
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
10 | P a g e
governmental organizations and residents, to improve the health of the Battle River and
Sounding Creek watersheds using the best science and social science available.
The interplay of interests and pressures to and from governments, and the many layers of
negotiation involved in instances of policymaking are of interest to the BRWA. Interests
and pressure include external influences that exist in all aspects of policymaking and
regulation, including those from industry, the four orders of government in Canada, other
governments, and public groups of various forms. The BRWA uses a policy community
approach (Bruneau, 2015a) to examine the interplay of interests and pressures between
actors, and layers of negotiation involved in instances of policymaking (Atkinson &
Coleman, 1992; Coleman &d Skogstad, 1990; Skogstad, 2005). In this way, we define
policy making as a series of decisions made before, during and after formation of
policies.
Figure 1. Counties within the Battle River Watershed Alliance planning area with
county boundaries.
The Watershed Management Plan (BRWA, 2012) is comprised of four general topic
areas: water quality, water quantity, land management, and biodiversity. Wetlands is one
component under land management, but has implications for all areas (Figure 2).
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
11 | P a g e
Figure 2. Framework for watershed management planning components in the Battle
River and Sounding Creek watersheds.
Adaptive management is an approach to natural resource policy that embodies a simple
imperative: policies are experiments that, over the course of the adaptive management
planning cycle (Figure 3), may prove inappropriate (Lee, 1993). Adaptive management
learns from these experiments in a manner that links science with social and economic
values found within the watershed (Mitchell, 1997; Sauchyn et al., 2010). By adopting an
adaptive management approach for watershed management planning, the BRWA
acknowledges that the natural and social systems functioning within the watershed are
not completely understood. Both the natural and social systems will, in the course of
time, present surprises that will test the adaptive management approach. The BRWA and
its partners must approach watershed management planning with the expectation that
some policies and actions identified during the planning process may be inappropriate,
but that the experiences and lessons learned allow us collectively to improve these
watershed management approaches over time. The stages of adaptive management for
watershed management planning are described in Water for Life: Alberta’s Strategy for
Sustainability (Government of Alberta, 2003).
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
12 | P a g e
Figure 3. Adaptive management planning cycle for watershed management
planning in the Battle River and Sounding Creek watersheds (Government of
Alberta, 2003).
Adaptive management could be a very useful approach to determining effective wetland
conservation and restoration configurations to optimize benefits (Zendler, 2003). Such an
approach is important in agricultural watersheds where key land, and thus landowners
and managers, would be required to be a part of the restoration, and not just restoration
on an ad hoc basis.
Policy background research, policy recommendations, and guidelines are developed for
each watershed management component for each sub-watershed throughout the
watershed management plan development (Figure 4). Policies examined incorporate
formal and informal (ad hoc) policies, and address economic, social, and environmental
impacts of the topic. Examples of short term (i.e. during the current crop year) and
longer-term (longer than the current crop year) adaptations are presented by topic area.
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
13 | P a g e
Figure 4. Policy research and development process.
The purpose of this report is to explore the policy context within which the management
of wetlands occurs in the planning areas of the Battle River Watershed Alliance, and
opportunities to learn from other jurisdictions to incorporate into our governance models.
From this report, and in accordance with the watershed management plan, the Battle
River Watershed Alliance has developed policy advice and implementation guidelines.
1.3 Battle River Watershed
1.3.1 Location of the Battle River watershed.
The Battle River watershed begins at Battle Lake in the west, and moves eastward into
Saskatchewan, where the Battle River joins the North Saskatchewan River at Battleford.
Topography defines the entire watershed, as it shapes the course and speed of water
moving through the area. The boundaries of the watershed are known as drainage divides
(i.e. the height of land between adjoining watersheds). Within the Battle River watershed,
there are five sub-watersheds: Bigstone, Iron Creek, Paintearth, Blackfoot, and Ribstone.
Sounding Creek watershed to the southeast is also part of the BRWA planning area, and
incorporates Alberta’s Special Areas (Figure 5) (BRWA, 2012).
Background Research
Policy AdviceImplementation
Guidelines Implementation
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
14 | P a g e
Figure 5. Battle River and Sounding Creek watersheds within Alberta.
1.3.2 Natural landscape of the Battle River Watershed.
The Alberta portion of the Battle River watershed is located entirely within the province’s
settled “White Zone”, and takes in portions of the Lower Foothills, Central Mixedwood,
Dry Mixedwood, Central Parkland and Northern Fescue Natural Sub-Regions (BRWA,
2012).
The Battle River watershed is a sub-watershed of the larger North Saskatchewan River
Basin, draining approximately 40 per cent of the land base of this watershed. However,
the Battle River only contributes approximately 3 per cent of the water that flows in the
North Saskatchewan River. There are two primary reasons for this. Firstly, the
headwaters of the Battle River originate in the Western Plains at Battle Lake. This means
water flowing in the Battle River originates as groundwater and surface water runoff from
local snowmelt and rains, rather than from mountain and foothills snowpack runoff.
Secondly, the topography of the Battle River Watershed is predominantly flat (the river’s
average gradient is less than 0.4 m/km) with large tracts of land that are considered non-
contributing, either naturally or due to human influence. Non-contributing means that
water falling as snow or rain collects in small lakes and wetlands, where the water will
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
15 | P a g e
eventually either infiltrate into the ground or evaporate before it ever reaches the Battle
River. All of this results in very low flows in the Battle River, except for a short period of
time annually in April and May and periodically in summer months during major
rainstorm events (BRWA, 2012).
1.4 Sounding Creek Watershed
1.4.1 Location of the Sounding Creek Watershed.
The planning area for the Sounding Creek watershed begins just east of Sullivan Lake
near Highway 36 and continues east to the Alberta-Saskatchewan border (Figure 1). The
planning area boundary is defined as the portion of the Sounding Creek watershed that
lies within Alberta (BRWA, 2012).
1.4.2 Natural Landscape of the Sounding Creek Watershed.
The Alberta portion of the Sounding Creek watershed is entirely within the province’s
settled “White Zone”, and takes in portions of the Central Parkland, Northern Fescue and
Dry Mixed Grass Natural Sub-Regions (BRWA, 2012).
The Sounding Creek watershed is considered dead drainage. Sounding Creek begins near
Hanna, Alberta and flows into Sounding Lake. The outlet from Sounding Lake is Eyehill
Creek, which flows into Saskatchewan and culminates in Manito Lake. There is no outlet
from Manito Lake. As outflows from Sounding Lake are believed to have only occurred
one or two times in the last fifty years, the area upstream of Sounding Lake is generally
considered a non-contributing area. Despite being a non-contributing watershed, it is
classified by Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (PRFA) as a sub-watershed of
the greater North Saskatchewan River Basin (BRWA, 2012).
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
16 | P a g e
2 Wetlands
Alberta’s wetlands provide a host of hydrological, ecological, and socio-economic
benefits and are among the most productive ecosystems in the province. Within the
context of watershed management, wetlands play a particularly important role in
determining water quality and quantity through filtration and removal of contaminants,
sediments and excess nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous, and by recharging
groundwater, storing water, attenuating floods and contributing to base flows.
Often referred to as “nature’s kidneys”, wetlands are one of the Earth’s most productive
and beneficial aquatic ecosystems, providing numerous benefits to watersheds,
communities and economies. The complex physical, chemical, and biological interactions
that occur within wetlands perform many important ecological functions related to water
quality and supply. Wetlands are integral to watershed health and contribute to the
achievement of all three goals of Water for Life: Alberta’s Strategy for Sustainability:
Safe, secure drinking water
Healthy aquatic ecosystems
Reliable, quality water supplies for a sustainable economy
The role of wetlands in watershed health and function is well documented globally. That
role is particularly evident in prairie-fed watersheds such as the Battle River and
Sounding Creek watersheds. The services provided by wetlands include local and
regional groundwater recharge, surface water storage, flood attenuation, tourism, wildlife
habitat, recreational opportunities, economic benefits via forage production, tourism,
fishing and hunting, and carbon sequestration. The also provide several water quality
benefits including retention of sediments from runoff, absorption of excess nutrients such
as nitrogen and phosphorous, degradation of pesticides and reduction of water-borne
pathogens.
A healthy and resilient watershed requires an abundance of wetlands consisting of a
variety of types and classes properly distributed throughout the watershed in order to
function properly. Each wetland type and class provides unique and complimentary
functions, all of which are important. Water permanence is not an indication of
importance.
2.1 Definitions
2.1.1 What is a wetland?
Wetlands are defined as areas of land saturated with water for long enough periods to
promote aquatic processes as indicated by the poorly drained soils, hydrophilic
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
17 | P a g e
vegetation, and various kinds of biological activity that are adapted to a wet environment
(National Wetlands Working Group, 1988). Wetlands are also considered waterbodies,
many with bed and shore characteristics. As such, they are owned by the Crown. Though
the government does not claim ownership of ephemeral, temporary and seasonal wetlands
(Alberta Environment and Parks, 2016b), all wetlands are subject to the Water Act, thus
any modifications to any wetland, even on private property, require approval
(Government of Alberta, 2015c).
2.1.2 Types of wetlands
The Canadian Wetland Classification System recognizes five wetland classes, which
include bogs, fens, swamps, shallow water, and marshes (Adams et al. 1987, 1997). The
five classes are recognized based on the overall origin of wetland ecosystems and the
nature of the wetland habitat. Almost all prairie wetlands belong to the marsh and shallow
open water classes under this system. Wetland forms, subdivisions of each wetland class)
are based on surface morphology, surface pattern, water type and morphology of
underlying mineral soil. Many of the wetland forms apply to more than one wetland class
and some can be further subdivided into sub-forms and types. Wetland types are
classified according to soil type and vegetation (Adams et al. 1997).
Wetlands are also classified based on hydrology and pond permanence, or the duration of
surface water in the wetland. They can be ephemeral, temporary, seasonal, semi-
permanent, or permanent (Figure 6) [for definitions see Alberta Environment and
Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD), 2015]. These conditions may change over
time, and with land use changes. These types of wetland also have different policy and
regulation status, as will be discussed later on in this document.
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
18 | P a g e
Figure 6. Plant and water zones for various prairie wetland classes using the Stewat
and Kantrud (1971) system (from Ross & Martz, 2013). Reprinted with permission.
The Alberta Wetland Classification System (AESRD, 2015) was developed to align with
the Canadian Wetland Classification System, as well as with classification systems of
Ducks Unlimited Canada and the Alberta Wetland Inventory. The Alberta Wetland
Classification System utilizes a similar system of classification and the other two
classification systems, but is based more on the criteria of Stewart and Kantrud (1971)
while incorporating Alberta’s flora and ranges of environmental, geological, and climatic
characteristics (AESRD, 2015).
2.2 Importance of Wetlands
Wetlands are important for various ecological, social, and economic reasons. Wetlands
have several key ecological functions. These include
1) Remove and store nutrients;
2) Climate stabilization;
3) Carbon sequestration;
4) Water storage;
5) Groundwater recharge and discharge;
6) Improve water quality
7) Maintain habitat and biodiversity; and
8) Create primary productivity.
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
19 | P a g e
These functions create and provide various products, ecosystem services (ES), and
benefits we experience though health, water, education opportunities, industry, cultural
heritage, agriculture, recreation, aesthetics, and tourism (Wray & Bayley, 2006). They are
also important natural heritage areas, and are the focus of much scientific research.
Wetlands also support a variety of economic activities and functions. Degraded and
drained wetlands have a financial cost that are incurred by society to replace the
ecological goods and services these wetlands provided, such as (Wolfe, 2006, p. 2)
Increased water treatment costs;
Increased illness and health care costs;
Irrigation water shortage;
Water hauling and deeper wells required;
Increased insurance costs due to flooding;
Decreased property value due to degraded aesthetic qualities;
Decreased swimming/fishing opportunities; and
Decreased revenues from tourism activities associated with healthy ecosystems.
2.3 Wetland Loss and Cumulative Impacts
It is estimated that wetlands cover about 6% of the world’s land surface (Maltby &
Turner, 1983), though this is likely about half of the extent before human modifications.
In North America, prairie pothole wetlands (the predominant wetland formation in the
Battle River and Sounding Creek watersheds) are some of the most threatened
ecosystems, largely due to drainage from land use and agricultural expansion (Badiou et
al, 2011). Much of the drainage has been uncontrolled. Pre 1990, wetlands were removed
from the landscape as a policy of the Alberta government encouraged landowners and
producers to drain wetlands to increase land for agricultural use (AESRD, 2009). This
was accomplished through various supports such as the Farm Surface Water Drainage
Program, and through the operation of drainage districts. However, these likely only
account for a small portion of the total drainage (<15-20%) (A. Corbett, personal
communication, December 4, 2016). Approximately 60‐70 percent of wetlands in the
White (Settled) Area of Alberta have been lost (acreage loss about 40-50%), and loss
continues at approximately 0.3-0.5 per cent of its wetlands each year (Pattison et al.,
2013).
Throughout much of the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR), wetland loss has been focused on
smaller wetlands (Van Meter & Basu, 2015) as they tend to be easier to drain. The high
perimeter (P) to area (A) ratio of smaller wetlands translates into a disproportionate loss
of wetland perimeter (Van Meter & Basu, 2015). For example, if we assume wetlands are
circular, the P: A ratio for a wetland with an area of 100 meter squared (m2) would be
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
20 | P a g e
0.32 m-1 whereas that ratio for a 1000 m2 wetland would be only 0.11 m-1. This is
significant as much of the biological/biogeochemical cycling (Marton et al., 2015) and
groundwater interaction (Hayashi & Rosenberry, 2002) functions of wetlands occur at the
perimeter.
Wetland loss and function impairment contributes to non-point source pollution, severely
affecting water quality. Part of what contributed to these impacts is that the drainage area
increases. In Manitoba, Ducks Unlimited Canada, in partnership with the University of
Guelph and Tarleton State University, completed a research project to determine the
impacts of wetland loss and associated drainage activity in the Broughton’s Creek
watershed in southwestern Manitoba. The study determined that wetland loss between
1968 and 2005 increased drainage area by 31%, and had additional impacts (Yang et al.,
2008)
A 31 % increase in nitrogen & phosphorus export from the watershed,
Peak runoff or rainfall event flow increased by 18%,
Total watershed outflow increased by 30%,
Average annual sediment loading increased by 41%,
The release of approximately 34,000 tonnes of carbon, the equivalent of 125,000
tonnes of CO2 (annual emissions from almost 23,200 cars), and
28% reduction in waterfowl production potential
When intact, wetlands collect and store water from the surrounding landscape during rain
or snowmelt, where they filter sediments, pollutants, and nutrients before slowly
returning water to aquatic or groundwater systems. The local drainage area is connected
to downstream flows, so when wetlands are drained, or even partly drained, this causes
water carrying nutrients and sediments to move rapidly through the former wetland area
and directly to downstream ditches, streams, rivers, lakes and drinking water supplies.
Isolated wetland loss is not the only issue associated with wetlands. Land use and other
impacts that affect wetland function are challenges that need to be managed. These
impacts can be gradual or abrupt. When many wetlands are drained or functionally
impaired, the cumulative impacts can be significant, and can constrain wetland
restoration efforts (Bedford, 1999). This aspect of wetland management is rarely
addressed in policies and management frameworks. In addition to significant loss of
wetland area, cumulative impacts associated with wetlands have resulted in several
things, including disproportionate loss of certain wetland types, degradation of remaining
wetlands, and the subsequent decrease in native biodiversity (Bedford, 1999). These
impacts also alter the landscape and the resilience of the ecosystem (Gunderson et al.,
2006). When ecosystems and landscapes undergo a certain degree of change, their
resilience declines, and they can abruptly change from one state to another (Gunderson et
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
21 | P a g e
al., 2006), called a regime shift. These shifts come with different ecosystem conditions
and services, and are difficult to reverse. Combined with impacts of climate disruption,
continued loss and impacts to wetlands may push our prairie and parkland ecosystems
into to states.
Since cumulative impacts alter the landscape and can affect restoration efforts, an
assessment the cumulative impacts of wetland loss and degradation on landscape and
ecosystem functions on a watershed or subwatershed scale is needed (Bedford & Preston,
1988).
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
22 | P a g e
3 Battle River and Sounding Creek Wetlands
In this section, the geographic and wetland context for the Battle River and Sounding
Creek watersheds are discussed.
3.1 Prairie Pothole Region
The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America is the core of what used to be the
largest expanse of grassland in the world, the Great Plains of North America, extending
over approximately 800,000 km2 (Badiou et al., 2011) (Figure 7). The name comes from
the geological phenomenon that left its mark beginning 10,000 years ago. When the
glaciers from the last ice age receded, millions of shallow depressions were left behind
that are now wetlands, known as prairie potholes (Ducks Unlimited, 2015). They are
generally small, less than 50 hectares (AESRD, 2009) with an average size is about 4
acres (Dahl, 2014), and abundant. Due to the prevalence of these depressions on the
landscape, much of the drainage is into these depressions rather that into streams of
rivers. As a result, this area is designated as non-contributing (Shook & Pomeroy, 2011).
Figure 7. Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) in Canada and the United States (from
Wrubleski & Ross, 2011).
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
23 | P a g e
These potholes are rich in plant and aquatic life, and support globally significant
populations of breeding waterfowl and other wildlife (Johnson et al., 2005). However,
agricultural development has caused considerable wetland drainage in the area (Ducks
Unlimited, 2015).
The majority of the area of the Battle River and Sounding Creek watersheds is located
within the PPR, with a few exceptions.
3.2 Wetlands of the Battle River & Sounding Creek Watersheds
The majority of wetlands in the Battle River and Sounding Creek watersheds are mineral-
based marsh wetlands associated with the Aspen Parkland ecoregion (Figure 8).
However, the western portion of the watershed is located in the Boreal Transition Zone,
which includes a mixture of mineral and peat based wetland types. This area contains the
Cooking Lake moraine (and Miquelon Lake Provincial Park). The land in the moraine is
characterized by hummocky “knob and kettle” terrain that forms a mixture of depression
areas, many of which contain small lakes and wetlands (Ambrose, 2010). There are also
fens in the eastern portion of the watershed in the Parkland Dunes Environmentally
Significant Areas.
Figure 8. Wetland type distribution in Alberta (from AESRD, 2009).
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
24 | P a g e
The Battle River and Sounding Creek watersheds are located primarily within the Prairie
Pothole Region. Since wetlands are a common feature on the local landscape, human
activities often interact with wetlands. As of 2011, wetlands accounted for approximately
1.8% and 4% of the total land cover Battle River and Sounding Creek watersheds
(respectively). This, however, does not account lost and drained wetlands. Data from the
Atlas of Canada (Natural Resources Canada, 2015) indicates that in the Battle River and
Sounding Creek watersheds, area of pre-settlement wetlands would comprise 5-10% of
the land (Figure 9).
Figure 9. The proportion of land in Alberta classified as wetland (AESRD, 2009).
A comprehensive regional wetland change detection study done in Alberta was the
Environment Canada’s Prairie and Northern Region Habitat Monitoring Program Phase
II (Watmough et al., 2007). This study assessed wetland change between 1985 and 2001
and indicated that for this area (including the Battle River and Sounding Creek
watersheds) the following trends were observed (Barr, 2011)
gross wetland area loss is significant and higher in Alberta than the prairie
regional average;
gross wetland area loss in the North Saskatchewan Region (i.e., Aspen Parkland
ecoregion) is very significant and substantially higher than the prairie regional
average;
mean size of lost wetlands is very small; and
the number of wetland losses (i.e. basins) is very high.
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
25 | P a g e
Comparing the current area of wetland land cover to the estimated pre-settlement area of
wetland land cover, the Battle River watershed has lost more wetland area than the
Sounding Creek watershed. The details of where losses and impacts have occurred were
identified, in part, with wetland inventory techniques.
3.2.1 Wetland Inventories
The Government of Alberta, under the direction of Water for Life: Alberta’s Strategy for
Sustainability, has identified the need to develop a comprehensive wetland inventory for
the province. Two distinct inventory methodologies have been developed for use in the
White Area and the Green Area of Alberta (Figure 10).
Figure 10. Green and White Management Areas in Alberta.
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
26 | P a g e
In the White Zone (where Battle River and Sounding Creek watersheds are located), high
resolution, historic, and current aerial photography is typically used to determine the
change in wetland area over time. Commonly referred to as the “Comprehensive” or
“Drained” wetland inventory, this differs from previous inventory methods in that it can
accurately capture drained and altered wetlands, thereby accurately measuring wetland
loss. This method does not typically classify wetlands remotely, but classification data
can be added through inclusion of field observations.
The 2005 wetland inventory of the Iron Creek sub-watershed is an example of this
method. The resulting data was utilized to develop a cartographic representation of
wetland impacts and a wetland impact model as a product of the broader Water for Life
Inventory. The model incorporated baseline wetland inventory collected for the entire
sub-watershed based on 1963 photography. The inventory methodology was then
repeated for the recent time period using 2005 photography. With two temporal
representations of the abundance and distribution of wetland features in hand, a
geoprocessing model was developed that would assign impact categories to each wetland
basin. The model output characterizes the current state of wetland resources and the
distribution of wetland impacts across the entire sub-watershed.
This data provide a valuable resource for targeting wetland conservation and restoration
initiatives, and support further research into the hydrologic and ecological consequences
of the impacts. According to this inventory, two-thirds of the wetlands in the Iron Creek
sub-watershed have been drained, lost, or altered (Figure 11). This accounts for
approximately 43 million m3 of water (for explanation on estimating prairie pothole
volume, see Hayashi & van der Kamp, 2000; Minke et al., 2010). Full wetland
inventories have not yet been completed for much of the Battle River and Sounding
Creek areas, though a few are complete and underway (Figure 12). The information for
the Iron Creek sub-watershed, as well as other Water for Life inventories completed in the
Battle River watershed is located in Appendix A.
The level of wetland inventory and mapping found in the Iron Creek study is useful to
help determine type and extent of wetland loss, and is fundamental to planning, decision-
making, objective setting and implementation in watershed and other planning initiatives.
Setting appropriate wetland retention and restoration objectives greatly depends on the
development of these high-resolution inventories.
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
27 | P a g e
Figure 11. Iron Creek subwatershed wetland inventory. Pink – Altered (outlet drain added); Green – consolidated
(inlet drain added); Red – Lost (outlet drain added, wetland plants absent); Yellow – Altered (wetland plants
absent/disturbed); Blue – Intact (wetland plants present).
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
28 | P a g e
Figure 12. Battle River and Sounding Creek wetland inventories as of 2009.
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
29 | P a g e
4 Land Use
Wetlands are an integral part of the landscape. Due to the nature of wetland hydrology
and functions, significant interactions and influences exist between wetlands and their
wider landscapes (Maltby & Acreman, 2011). Thus, how the land is used affects
wetlands. Quality, functionality, and quantity of wetlands are all impacted. Some land
uses allow wetlands to co-exist with human uses, but due to poor policy oversight, and
societal norms, wetlands are often destroyed or altered for convenience and economic
benefit. The Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation reinforces the importance of
interconnections of wetlands and the landscape, and should be reflected in the
management strategies that are pursued:
Wetlands and wetland functions are inextricably linked to their
surroundings, particularly aquatic ecosystems, and therefore wetland
conservation must be pursued in the context of an integrated systems
approach to environmental conservation and sustainable development
(Government of Canada, 1991, p.6)
Despite this, few wetland policies developed at any level of government or organization
stipulate or mention management of surrounding land use. Some land use practices have
larger impacts, and can be detected up to 4 km away (Houlahan & Findlay, 2003). As a
result, small-scale buffers may not be effective.
Another challenge in managing wetlands and land use and development is the issue of
wetland permanence and area. Wetlands can have catchment areas 3 to 20 times the size
of those wetlands (varies with climatic and geologic conditions). Understanding this may
help understand how land management may affect certain wetlands (Hayashi et al.,
2016). As mentioned earlier in this report, wetlands have varying pond permanence.
Whether industrial, commercial, residential, or general infrastructure development,
assessing permanence is important in regards to provincial approvals for development
and municipal planning. Alberta Environment and Parks have developed guidelines on
assessing and determining wetland pond permanence (AEP, 2014).
4.1 Agriculture
Throughout Alberta, there has been a long history of destroying or altering wetlands for
agricultural purposes to increase area of arable land. Policies promoting drainage were
common in the mid-1900s (i.e. Korven & Heinrichs, 1971). Now, with the change in
policy and increased societal value on wetland services, including water quality
improvement, flood control, wildlife habitat, and recreation. Landowners are often not
able to profit from these services because the benefits are freely enjoyed by many
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
30 | P a g e
(Heimlich et al., 1998). As a result, the agriculture community is facing the brunt of the
impact and cost through pressure to reduce area of farmable land for restoring wetlands,
as well as potential reduced re-sale value for lands where wetlands are identified. Since
wetland restoration and conservation benefits society, a system where taxpayers
compensate farmers for wetland restoration and conservation on their land seems
justifiable (Zedler, 2003).
Many challenges remain pertaining to how landowners, crop producers, and livestock
producers perceive and manage wetlands. Much of this has to do with access for crop
planting and management and the additional costs with farming around wetlands (Cortus
et al., 2010). With increasing size of farm machinery and implements, maneuvering
around or between wetland areas, and ensuring overspray does not impact wetlands, is
difficult. There are some new and emerging technologies and practices on the horizon,
such as sectional and spot application spraying, along with GPS navigation, which could
ease some maneuvering issues. Such methods would also reduce input costs. Wetter areas
also require delayed seeding (Cortus et al., 2010).
As well, many landowners may be unaware that most wetlands (with the exception
ephemeral, temporary and seasonal wetlands) (and all other waterbodies and
watercourses) are owned and governed by the Government of Alberta (Alberta
Environment and Parks, 2016c). Alteration to any wetland (including ephemeral,
temporary and seasonal wetlands) and other waterbodies and watercourses falls under the
Water Act, requires a permit through the Government of Alberta, even those on private
property (Government of Alberta, 2015c). This lack of awareness is a fundamental issue
in wetland management in Alberta that needs to be addressed. In addition, many
landowners are unaware that they have wetlands on their property, especially seasonal
ones, or wetlands that have been previously altered or drained.
Wetlands can be very beneficial for both crop and livestock producers. They help prevent
flooding and maintain water tables and water availability during droughts through water
storage, provide shelter, forage, and water for livestock, absorb excess nutrients and
potential contaminants from runoff and the air, and on a local scale contribute to cloud
and rain formation (Alberta Conservation Association, 2011; Alberta Environment,
2003). Such benefits can be incorporated into grazing management plans and
environmental farm plans to maximize outputs.
There is increasing concern over the use of pesticides, especially the family of
neonicotinoids (or neonics). Though wetlands can remove/process many pesticides
(Gabor et al., 2004; Kao et al., 2002), neonicotinoid pesticides “exhibit chemical
properties that enhance environmental persistence and susceptibility to transport into
aquatic ecosystems through runoff and drainage of agricultural areas” (Morrissey et al,
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
31 | P a g e
2015, p.292). As a result, they have been found in studies across the PPR in
concentrations that suggest high persistence and transport of these chemicals on the
agricultural landscape (Main et al., 2014). These pesticides can harm non-target aquatic
insects (Morrissey et al, 2015), thus they affect wetland aquatic ecosystems functions
(Main et al., 2015). The longevity of neonics is unknown, and with possibility for high
toxicity to aquatic insects in water, some scientists warn against the large-scale use of
these pesticides as impacts to aquatic invertebrates and cascading food webs could be
substantial (Morrissey et al, 2015). Many jurisdictions, such as several nations in the
European Union (European Commission, 2013), most of the United Kingdom, the
Province of Ontario, and several major Canadian cities, have banned the use of
neonicotinoid pesticides because of their persistence and other issues. The United States
still allows the use of most neonicotinoid pesticides.
Damage to wetland riparian areas by cattle is also a pervasive issue. Many technologies
and management systems exist to reduce or eliminate damage to wetlands and riparian
areas while increasing cattle condition. Offsite watering systems, or providing a non-
erodible ramp allows livestock access to cleaner water and improves animal overall
performance. Adoption of a controlled grazing and a rotational grazing system effectively
utilizing rangeland can be used while protecting wetland and riparian habitats (Fitch et
al., 2003). Programs to offset costs are available through Growing Forward 2 and other
provincial/regional programs.
Other impacts of agriculture and upland management involve how different vegetation
types and their management influence hydrologic processes, such as the amount and
quality of water entering wetlands (Haak, 2015; Renton et al., 2015). Cultivated fields
with shorter stubble allow for more surface runoff (van der Kamp et al., 2003) and snow
transport (Fang & Pomeroy, 2008), increasing water volume in wetlands. Wetlands
surrounded by undisturbed grassland, especially with non-native species such as smooth
brome grass (Bromus inermis) and alfalfa (Medicago sativa), tend to dry up (van der
Kamp et al., 2003). These species of plants use a lot moisture, have a large root system.
In restoration projects, they were used to create nesting cover for wetland birds. As well,
undisturbed grasslands trap more snow, and allow for more infiltration (van der Kamp et
al., 2003).
Additionally, agriculture and other forms of upland management also affect waterfowl
and other wildlife that rely on the area surrounding wetlands for breeding and raising
young (Whited et al., 2000). These impacts are influenced not just by type of crop or
vegetation, but the way it is managed, and timing of that management. Fall seeded,
delayed cut hay, and grazed pasture, and perennial crops range from least to most,
respectively, disruptive (Haak, 2015). The Western Winter Wheat Initiative, a
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
32 | P a g e
collaboration between Bayer CropScience, Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC), the Mosaic
Company Foundation, and Richardson International Limited, was designed to build
awareness and credibility of winter wheat as a highly productive crop option for western
Canadian farmers, while also promoting waterfowl and upland game bird habitat
(Western Winter Wheat Initiative, n.d.).
Wetland Management Districts (WMDs) in the U.S. allow and utilize agriculture as a
land use tool through the administration of a Special Use Permit (SUP) or a Habitat
Management Agreement (HMA). The WMD provides direction to the crop farmers on
the types of crops that can be planted, crop shares or cash payments for farming
privileges, use of pesticides, use of best management practices, timing of disturbances,
and any other special conditions to ensure the farming program is conducted properly
(United States Fish & Wildlife Service [FWS], 2014). This process permits farming
(though in a more limited capacity) to occur, as well as promoting wildlife use of
wetlands and surrounding uplands.
4.2 Urban and Rural Development
Though most historical wetland loss in Alberta was caused by agricultural practices and
policies, more recent wetland loss is the result of industrial development, and urban
development and sprawl (Boyer & Polasky, 2004). When urban developers remove
wetlands, they are able to pay the replacement costs with lower cost rural land.
In 2013, the Alberta Urban Municipality Association (AUMA) and Alberta Association
of Municipal Districts and Counties (AAMDC) developed a Municipal Water Policy on
Wetlands. This policy was developed to provide a municipal perspective on the
implementation of the new Alberta wetland policy, and help enable municipalities and
their partners to conserve and restore wetlands (Alberta Urban Municipality Association
[AUMA], 2013).
4.2.1 Naturalized Stormwater and Wastewater Ponds
The water filtering and storage function of wetlands is being utilized by many
municipalities and organizations through the creation of naturalized stormwater and
wastewater ponds. The purpose for constructed wetlands is to retain runoff (whether from
urban or rural areas) for a prolonged period of time to allow for the uptake and storing on
pollutants from the runoff (Alberta Environmental Protection, 1999). The question of
whether or not restored and created wetlands are structurally and functionally equivalent
to natural wetlands has been the focus of extensive research, with varied results (i.e.
Kayranli et al., 2009; Rooney et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2014).
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
33 | P a g e
As these naturalized stormwater management facilities (NSWMFs) are human-made and
their primary function is stormwater collection, their shoreline slopes are often much
steeper than natural wetlands, resulting in fewer, narrower wetland vegetation zones. This
would have impacts on water filtration, as well as biodiversity (Forrest, 2010).
Improvements on the design by integrating ecological principles have led to better and
more functional NSWMFs (i.e. Forrest, 2010; Lilley & Labatiuk, 2001; Ross & Martz,
2013) that also benefit the community (Native Plant Solutions, 2012). Criteria for
stormwater wetland design and other BMPs has been laid out by the Government of
Alberta (Alberta Environmental Protection, 1999).
Under the new Alberta wetland policy, there is allowance for the construction of
stormwater wetlands for partial credit of wetland replacement requirements (Government
of Alberta, 2015b). No matter the design, some wetland ecosystem services stormwater
management facilities are unable to provide due to conflicting goals (Rooney et al.,
2015). As well, education and engagement is in need of to change public perception of
urban wetlands, identify key wetland traits, and understand the implications of wetland
compensation, and not focus solely on the aesthetics of stormwater wetlands.
Similar to stormwater management facilities, wetlands are also created to naturalize
wastewater management. Research has been done internationally to look into how
constructed wetlands could help municipalities, industries, as well as rural areas deal with
wastewater. Such innovations could be of great benefit in developing world where
inadequate access to clean water and sanitation have become the most pervasive
problems afflicting people (Zhang et al., 2014).
In Canada, there have been studies pertaining to the use of wastewater wetlands to treat
municipal (Anderson et al., 2013), industrial (Rozema et al., 2016), and agricultural
(Kinsley, 2015) wastewater. Agricultural and municipal wastewater has also been used to
restore a prairie wetland (White & Bayley, 1999). Though initial results are promising for
wastewater treatment, some wetland wastewater systems have shown declines in nutrient
removal after 4–5 years of continuous loadings, depending on rate of loading. This may
result in eutrophication of the wetland, and degrade water quality downstream White et
al., 1999).
4.3 Industry
Industrial development can have many impacts on wetlands and the landscape. One
persistent issue across many industries is the matter of access roads. Several documents
created by Ducks Unlimited Canada and their industry partners address how best to plan
and manage access roads in relation to a variety of wetlands (Ducks Unlimited Canada et
al., 2014; Partington et al., 2016).
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
34 | P a g e
4.3.1 Gravel Mining
Currently, more than 20 municipal, provincial, and federal acts, policies, and regulations
govern gravel and other aggregate extraction activities in Alberta (Alberta Sand & Gravel
Association [ASGA], 2015). For applications under both provincial (Alberta
Environment, 2004) and municipal (i.e. Camrose County, 2014), wetlands and riparian
areas are treated similarly, and encourage consideration of using naturally vegetated
buffers for water quality and wildlife habitat. Erosion control (recommended as
vegetation), in regards to preventing siltation of water bodies, is a required part of all
plans (Alberta Environment, 2004). It is generally recommended, however, wetlands be
avoided (Alberta Environment, 2004).
4.3.2 Oil and Gas
The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) (2013) sets out approval standards and setbacks for
the various classes of wetlands, as well as for a variety of pond permanence wetlands.
These can pertain to types of industrial activity, as well as suggested setbacks for various
animal types that may be of interest in the area. Applicants are also responsible for
identifying potential waterbodies that may not be wet at the time of application due to
climatic reason. Overall the AER supports best management practices for industrial
activities that minimize “disturbance and adverse environmental effects” (Alberta Energy
Regulator [AER], 2013, p.23) to environmentally sensitive areas. Any industrial activities
that require disturbance or alteration of wetlands requires a Water Act licence.
Specifically for well pads, AER requires that the center of a well must be a minimum of
100 m from a waterbody. Any closer than the 100 m setback and special conditions must
be met. Any disturbance or alteration of wetlands requires a Water Act licence (AER,
2011).
There are specific requirements on Tier 1 land around Battle Lake including stringent
spill and contaminated runoff mitigation measures and total avoidance of wetlands.
Proponents are also responsible to identify and protect any unmapped water features in
these areas (AER, 2011).
4.4 Land Use Planning
Land use planning, whether on a regional or municipal scale, is a crucial piece of wetland
management. This not only includes understanding how different land uses will affect
wetlands or how wetlands (or removal of) affect land use, but also incorporates
stakeholder establishment of wetland objectives and the identification of strategically
important wetlands at a local and regional level.
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
35 | P a g e
4.4.1 Land Use Framework and Regional Plans
As a major regional directive in regards to land use planning, the land use regional plans
being developed in Alberta are ideal opportunities to develop wetland management on a
regional/watershed scale. To date, only two have been approved in Alberta, the Lower
Athabasca Regional Plan (LARP) in 2012, and the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan
(SSRP) in 2014. In the LARP, wetlands are mentioned only briefly in relation to the
implementation of a progressive reclamation strategy which includes tools “to measure
and report on the return of equivalent capability” (Government of Alberta, 2012, p.46) of
various land uses, including wetlands.
The SSRP incorporates wetlands throughout of the document, and in detail. The overall
importance of key wetland and riparian areas as part of an integrated approach to
watershed management and health is recognized and emphasized in many of the sections,
such as outdoor recreation, and sustainable municipal development (Government of
Alberta, 2014). As the Alberta Wetland Policy was approved since the competition of the
SSRP, provincial wetlands management implementation is just beginning.
The North Saskatchewan Regional Plan (NSRP), in which the majority of the Battle
River watershed is located, is still underway. It is unknown how wetlands will be dealt
with in light of the Alberta Wetland Policy. Work is underway to incorporate wetlands
into the Biodiversity Management Framework of the NSRP. The forthcoming Red Deer
Regional Plan will also influence land use and wetlands in the Battle River and Sounding
Creek watersheds.
The North Saskatchewan Regional Plan presents several opportunities in regards to
wetlands. These include improving knowledge and understanding about wetlands, to
ensure wetlands are properly represented in the planning process, and to facilitate
pertinent environmental, social and economic information is consolidated. Together,
these actions could establish wetlands as integral to the regional plan, and ensure the
services they provide are recognized (Barr, 2011).
As part of the Government of Alberta ecosystem services (ES) pilot study (Government
of Alberta, 2011b), researchers suggest that there is an important link between ES
assessments and regional planning. Ensuring ES assessments are nested within other
planning and policy work of the regions, regional planners could apply some of an ES
approach at the outset of regional plan development. This would help ensure that
consideration of multi-scale services and benefits of wetlands is explicit in regional plan
design, thus incorporating the ES that contribute to the quality of life for people
(Government of Alberta, 2011b). Including wetlands as an essential component in
planning processes and application of available methods would be useful to establish
thresholds and cumulative impact management objectives, and help make trade-off
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
36 | P a g e
decisions when other values compete with maintaining wetlands (Maltby & Acreman,
2011).
4.4.2 Municipal
Municipalities have a large role to play in land use management. Cities, towns, and
counties each have a municipal development plan and/or land use bylaws. These
important tools can be used to help manage wetlands on private and municipal lands. The
Environmental Law Institute (2008) developed a planner’s guide on wetlands. Though
based on the U.S. system, this document compiles scientific literature on wetland buffers
and identified some techniques used and legislative choices made by various local
governments to design, manage, and monitor local wetlands and associated buffers.
Several towns and cities throughout Alberta have developed wetland conservation and
management plans, and some have done it combination with riparian plans. These
include Town of Cochrane, City of Calgary, Rocky View County, and City of Edmonton
(list not exhaustive). Many towns and cities, including City of Camrose and City of
Wetaskiwin, have bylaws regarding wetland and lake setbacks. Others group them in
with environmentally sensitive areas, which often have pertinent bylaws in the form of
setback requirements.
4.5 Buffers
Land use plays a role in the biodiversity of wetlands. Many land uses can negatively
affect wildlife species that rely on the wetlands, such as birds (Forcey et al., 2007;
Shutler et al., 2000; White & Bayley, 1999) and amphibians (Baldwin, et al., 2006; Gray
et al., 2004; Houlahan & Findlay, 2003; Kolozsvary & Swihart, 1999; Lehtinen, et al.,
1999; Semlitsch, 1998; Semlitsch & Bodie, 2003). The purpose of buffers (flexible, area-
specific) and setbacks (usually statutory) from water bodies is to create areas that
separate important remnant or wetland habitat from incompatible land uses. These area
usually control development or alterations, allowing natural vegetation and processes
near water bodies to remain as healthy and functional as possible, as well as to protect
private property from possible flooding and loss of land due to stream erosion and bank
instability. From the biological perspective, buffers provide additional habitat for wetland
species, and act as corridors for wildlife movement. More importantly buffers may
reduce disturbance (behavioural or physiological response of an animal to a stimulus)
(Weston et al., 2009), such as from agricultural or urban activities. Development of
effective buffers must consider several elements that can influence effectiveness and
impact wetland function.
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
37 | P a g e
Size is an important element of buffers. Some policies, regulations, and bylaws stipulate
buffer width and the type of setbacks required in relation to waterbody type, geology and
geography, industry type and land use purposes. However, buffer size, enforcement, and
application of these bylaws are not uniform.
In conjunction with buffers, considering the Critical Function Zones (CFZ) of a wetland
will expand the wetland functions area (Figure 13). The CFZ is used to define the “non-
wetland areas within which biophysical functions or attributes directly related to the
wetland occur” or the “functional extension of the wetland in to the upland”
(Environment Canada, 2013a, p.25). This could include the upland waterfowl nesting
habitat, or the foraging habitat for amphibians and insects around a wetland.
Figure 13. Critical Function and Protection Zones. Copyright Environment Canada,
2013a.
Riparian areas, buffers, and Protection Zones (PZ) (Environment Canada, 2013a) can
assist in the maintenance of the function of wetlands by protecting the wetland and its
functions from stressors related to surrounding land use change. Width of these areas will
vary, and depends on the surrounding land use, what function(s) will be preserved, and
the degree to which wildlife habitat is considered (Environment Canada, 2013a).
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
38 | P a g e
Buffer width varies according to the extent to which the buffer is designed to protect and
maintain wildlife habitat. Different wildlife groups have different habitat requirements
that dictate the size of the buffer. The common 20m or 30m setbacks contributes
minimally to wildlife habitat, except for small rodents and shrews. Most amphibians
ideally require at least 50 m (Hannon et al., 2002) though, for the Northern Leopard Frog
(Lithobates pipiens), it extends to 100m (Government of Alberta, 2011c). Songbirds,
avian raptors, ungulates, and mammalian carnivores (species ranging in size from cougar
to weasel) all require much larger buffers, ranging between 100-400m (AESRD, 2012b;
Environment Canada, 2013a; Hannon et al., 2002). Species at risk and other sensitive
species may have specific recommendations. Other setback and buffer guidelines for
wildlife and hydrologic function can be found in in Stepping Back from the Water
(AESRD, 2012b).
Various methods for determining buffers or setbacks are site-specific and land-use
specific, making them inappropriate to apply on a more regional or watershed scale.
Setbacks or buffer on a broader scale can be delineated using aerial videography as
described previously. Riparian assessments such as those provided by Cows and Fish
would be more localized. As well, the field manual created by Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada on buffer designs (Stewart et al., 2010) is more site-specific, but is designed for
landowners to do their own assessment.
The Riparian Setback Matrix Model (RSMM) (White & Gray, 2007) has been utilized as
a planning tool by a handful of municipalities in Alberta to establish policies for
wetlands. Town of Strathmore, Rocky View County, and Lakeland County all have
policies for protection of riparian and/or wetlands based on this model. The RSMM
delineates the width of an environmental reserve(ER) based on the slope of the land,
height of banks, groundwater influence, soil type, and vegetative cover. If no vegetation
exists, the ER is determined from the edge of water (White & Gray, 2007).
Alberta Riparian Habitat Management Society, known as Cows and Fish, also has
produced wetland assessment tools used to evaluate the health of wetlands and their
surrounding riparian areas (Ambrose et al., 2009). These tools were designed to assist in
training people, such as farmers, ranchers, lakeshore residents, landowners, land and
resource managers, to assess quickly riparian health for water bodies and interpret the
results of a health evaluation. This guide is often used in conjunction with the Alberta
Lentic Wetland Inventory and Alberta Lentic Wetland Health Assessment (Survey)
documents.
In addition to the size of buffers, vegetation composition is also important. As with any
healthy riparian area, vegetation in a variety of sizes, growth habits, and types are
important. In addition to this, a diversity of native vegetation (versus non-native species)
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
39 | P a g e
is ideal, both in regards to conservation and restoration. Some non-native grasses
commonly used in wetland restoration are water-intensive and can negatively affect water
levels in wetlands. In addition, native vegetation, especially the aquatic and semi-aquatic
types, reduce the amount of pesticides present in wetlands (Main et al., 2015).
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
40 | P a g e
5 Ecosystem Functions
As mentioned earlier in this report, wetlands provide many important ecosystem
functions. Ecosystem functions are actions that occurs naturally in ecosystems because of
the interactions between the ecosystem structure and its physical, biological, and
chemical processes. Wetlands in the PPR are disproportionately abundant in ecosystem
function and goods & services, especially in regards to waterfowl and other migratory
birds (Gren et al., 1994; Johnson et al., 2005). As a result, management decisions need to
incorporate the preservation of a mixture of land-use types to ensure a mix of services
and multiple benefits, including social, economic, and ecological to ensure the continued
healthy functioning of wetland ecosystems.
Natural and undisturbed wetlands generally have a greater ability to sustain these
functions than restored wetlands, including supporting biodiversity. Better wetland and
riparian restoration and construction techniques and design, together with time, can
restore many natural functions to some degree, providing the landscape with functional
wetlands again (Gleason et al., 2008).
5.1 Biodiversity and Habitat
As one of the hallmark characteristics of healthy wetlands, habitat for a diverse and
abundant group of species and phyla of organisms in healthy wetlands is an important
rationale for conservation and beneficial management practices. It also provides a basis
for establishing regional wetland objectives, connectivity, and networks. Maintaining
hydrodiversity helps maintains biodiversity (van der Kamp & Hayashi, 2009). Globally,
many species of concern are associated with or dependant upon wetlands (Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). In Canada, wetlands provide habitat to over 600 species
of plants and animals, and globally are second only to rainforests in the level of
biodiversity (Ducks Unlimited Canada, 2006). In Alberta, about 80% of all wildlife use
riparian areas for all or part of their lifecycle (Fitch et al., 2003). Riparian areas and
associated upland forests are also important corridors and provide connectivity on the
landscape for many wetland fauna species in fragmented landscapes (Nelner & Hood,
2011).
Loss of wetlands can lead to increases in habitat fragmentation (Johnson, 2001), affecting
bird, mammal, and amphibian species. Many birds rely on wetlands for various stages of
their life cycle. The wetlands of the PPR are, globally, the most productive habitat for
waterfowl (Johnson et al., 2005). Annually, potholes produce almost half of North
America’s waterfowl (Batt et al., 1989; Smith et al., 1964). Aside from waterfowl, many
other groups of birds rely on wetlands for breeding and food, including various raptor
species and upland birds, shorebirds, colonial species, bitterns, herons, grebes, and rails
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
41 | P a g e
(Naugle, 1997; Shutler et al., 2000; White & Bayley, 1999; Whited et al., 2000).
Approximately 250 bird species depend on wetland environments in Alberta for some
part of their life cycle, or use wetland areas for feeding, nesting or cover (Alberta
Environment, 2003). Habitats with wetlands nearby have higher diversity and quantity of
raptors and other upland birds than those that do not (Shutler et al., 2000; White &
Bayley, 1999).
Wetlands provide important habitat for other animal groups such as amphibians, reptiles,
and mammals. Reptiles often forage in aquatic or semi-aquatic habitats, but migrate
upland for nests, basking, and hibernating (Semlitsch & Bodie, 2003). In Alberta, about
15 species of amphibians and reptiles rely on wetland habitat to survive (Alberta
Environment, 2003). The provincially and nationally listed northern leopard frog
(Lithobates pipiens) is found in the Battle River watershed (AESRD, 2012a), and utilizes
a few wetlands at CFB Wainwright (S. Mascarin, personal communication, September
15, 2016). As this species requires three different habitats in close proximity to carry out
its lifecycle, land use changes have resulted in large decreases in populations across the
country, including Alberta (AESRD, 2012a, Environment Canada, 2013b; Pope et al.,
2000). Other species of amphibians, including wood frogs (Rana sylvatica) (Baldwin et
al., 2006) and tiger salamanders (Ambystoma tigrinum) (Semlitsch, 1998), require healthy
wetland and well as surrounding riparian areas.
Prairie potholes also play an important role in the life cycles of many mammals.
Mammal species that utilize wetlands are quite diverse. Though there are few wetland
obligate species, many forage and seek shelter in wetland and riparian areas, and thus are
impacted by wetland health and functions. In Alberta, 17 species of mammals depend on
wetland habitat to survive, with around 44 fur-bearing mammals that use wetlands
(Alberta Environment, 2003). In the Miquelon Lake Provincial Park area, at the edge of
the Battle River watershed, beaver-modified wetlands foster high biodiversity among
many types of mammals, even in winter (Nelner & Hood, 2011). These include deer,
weasel species, moose, coyote, pine marten, snowshoe hare, red squirrel, red-back vole,
and various shrew species. The muskrat is an example of an animal found throughout the
PPR. Muskrats inhabit all types of wetlands (at least temporarily), but only thrive in
wetlands deep enough to allow for activity under the ice throughout the winter (Fritzell,
1989).
Small, isolated, restored wetlands can also be important mammal habitat. Work done to
study the role of mammals as bioindicators for restored wetlands suggests that species
richness and composition does not differ largely between natural and restored wetlands
(Kurz et al., 2013). Well-designed and maintained restored wetlands with forested areas
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
42 | P a g e
may be a feasible solution for at least some of the ecological impacts associated with
wetland loss (Kurz et al., 2013).
5.2 Water Quality
Water quality in wetlands is determined and influenced by many factors. Surrounding
land use, vegetation (amount and type), type of wetland, pond permanence, landscape
position, hydrogeologic characteristics, flood and drought cycles, as well as temporal
factors such as season all influence the chemical, physical, and biological processes that
influence wetland water quality (Brunet, 2011; Gabor et al., 2004). Surface water runoff
can be a large contributor to varying water quality depending on the surrounding land
use. It is important to remember that many of the elements that contribute to water
quality challenges, such as nitrogen and phosphorous, are essential elements of living
systems. It is the quantity of these substances, and where they are ending up that
contribute to challenges.
Wetlands have different combinations of salts, often related to location of the wetlands,
groundwater inputs, or soil characteristics (van der Kamp & Hayashi, 2009; Brunet,
2011). Concentration of these salts varies seasonally as evaporation exceeds precipitation
(Brunet, 2011). Variations in salts and dissolved organic carbon in wetlands are linked to
hydrological processes, such as runoff, evaporation, and shallow groundwater
interactions (Brunet, 2011).
Much of the excess nutrient run off, and accompanying sediment and pesticides, from
surrounding urban and agricultural land use can be stored in wetlands (up to around 98%
of sediment) (Gabor et al., 2004). Wetlands convert and store much of the nitrogen and
phosphorous in sediments, in the water column, in organic material, or is given off into
the atmosphere (Brunet, 2011; Gabor et al., 2004). Studies have suggested that in a
wetland, there can be a reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus by 91% and 94%,
respectively (Gabor et al., 2004). As a result of biological processes, dissolved oxygen
content in wetlands vary with type, size, temperature, and depth of the wetland (Brunet,
2011).
Coliforms occur naturally in soil and water systems. Snowmelt and large precipitation
events can cause large amounts to enter waterbodies. Populations of semi-aquatic
mammals and waterfowl also produce coliforms. Large quantities of animal waste
coliforms could also come from cattle operations or through use of manure in field
fertilization (Brunet & Westbrook, 2012). Wetlands manage the levels of coliforms, as
well as nitrogen and phosphorous, through biological, sorption, and hydrological
processes (Brunet, 2011). Some studies have suggested that natural wetlands can reduce
coliforms up to 99% (Gabor et al., 2004).
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
43 | P a g e
High levels of biological productivity in wetlands, especially the abundance of
submerged and emergent plants, aids in the dissipation of pesticides (Kao et al., 2002).
The aquatic and hydrophilic vegetation increases the available surface area for pesticide
adsorption, plant sequestration, microbial degradation, and exposure to light (Gabor et al.
2004). In addition, the generally shallow character of wetlands allows for further light
penetration, allowing some chemicals to be broken down by the light (photolysis) (Gabor
et al. 2004). In general, common pesticides of surface and groundwater tend to disappear
rapidly from wetlands (Gabor et al. 2004), though whether this is true for neonics is still
being studied.
Drainage of wetlands, rural and urban, reduces water quality on a watershed scale.
Drainage not only allows excess nutrients and other pollutants from the current year to
flow freely off the landscape, but excess nutrients and potential contaminants stored in
the soils of the former wetland also leech out during runoff and heavy precipitation
events. This has implications for nutrient loading and eutrophication in watercourses and
waterbodies downstream (Venterink et al., 2002; Brunet, 2011; T. Scott, personal
communication, October 31, 2016). With increased drainage also comes increased soil
erosion and more inputs from surface water runoff.
Wetlands play a key role in capturing surface water runoff and filtering out harmful
contaminants. By providing and maintaining multiple natural barriers to contaminants
and excess nutrients, we can help ensure a safe, clean and reliable supply of water.
Wetlands are an essential component of this “multi-barrier” approach to source water
protection. Many source water protection plans, including the Camrose Source Water
Protection Plan (City of Camrose & Camrose County, 2016) and the North
Saskatchewan River Source Water Protection Plan in Saskatchewan (North
Saskatchewan River Basin Council, 2008), incorporate wetland conservation and
management to minimize certain risks pertaining to water quality.
5.3 Water Quantity
Since most wetlands are replenished from snowmelt and runoff, changes in the quantity
of precipitation affect wetlands, including water quality. By their nature, wetlands help
mitigate extreme events such as flood and drought. As most prairie potholes typically
lack surface connections to streams at average water levels, this makes them effective at
flood mitigation (Hubbard & Linder, 1986; Murkin, 1998). During higher than average
precipitation years, some wetlands may join and form stream channels, temporarily
increasing the drainage area (Shook & Pomeroy, 2011) (Figure 14). When ditches are
created and wetlands are drained, this artificially increases the contributing area of the
new channels, increases the likelihood of ongoing downstream flooding (Gabor et al.,
2004; McCauley et al., 2015).
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
44 | P a g e
Figure 14. Diagram of the water balance components of a prairie wetland. Dashed
arrows indicate the exchange of groundwater with surface water. The pond is a wet
area within the wetland. Adapted from “Hydrology of Prairie Wetlands:
Understanding the Integrated Surface-Water and Groundwater Processes” by M.
Hayashi, G. van der Kamp, & D.O. Rosenberry, Wetlands, 36 (Suppl.2), p. 245.
Copyright 2016 by Springer. Reprinted with permission.
Periodic drying of wetlands is also to be expected. Drought years where potholes dry up
or partially dry are important for cycling within the wetland, allowing oxygen to re-enter
the system, organic matter to break down and release nutrients, and reinvigorate the plant
communities by allowing new seeds to germinate (Brakhage, n.d.; Zenner & Hancock,
2012.). Overall, periodic drying leads to increased wetland productivity when water
returns (Brakhage, n.d.). Groundwater infiltration functions are not greatly impacted by
drought (Fang & Pomeroy, 2008).
Shook and Pomeroy (2011) described hysteresis, or a memory effect, in wetland systems
in the Canadian prairies. Wetland complexes ‘remember’ their initial conditions, where
the storage of water may cause ‘memory’ in the system, where the response of the system
at any time depends on the history of inputs and outputs. This has implication in terms of
wetland hydrological resiliency to drought events and keeping water on the landscape.
5.3.1 Wetland Drainage, Consolidation, and Surface water
Connectivity
With the interim Alberta wetland policy (Alberta Water Resources Commission, 1993),
destroyed wetlands were compensated for based on acreage. As a result, fewer larger
wetlands were constructed in the place of several small wetlands. Drainage and ditching
of small rural wetlands resulted in much the same conditions. However, whether through
drainage or as compensation, consolidation of wetland area became standard practice
(Rooney, 2014), which reduces the perimeter to area ratios (larger wetlands), and their
associated functions. This includes decreased habitat for all species, such as aquatic
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
45 | P a g e
invertebrates and waterfowl (and other migratory birds) by reduced spatial variability in
wetland conditions (McCauley et al., 2015; Wiltermuth, 2014).
The preferential loss of small upland wetlands, especially seasonal and temporary ones,
has led to the homogenization in the size of wetlands. This has negative repercussions for
ecosystem services. Decreases in the perimeter to area ratio reduces biochemical
processes and groundwater exchange (Van Meter & Basu, 2015). In addition, these losses
isolate remaining small wetlands, with distances almost double from historic distribution.
This has implications for dispersal and migration of wetland species, as well as in terms
of wetland connectivity. Migratory birds often overlook landscapes with low wetland
density as potential habitat (Van Meter & Basu, 2015).
As mentioned earlier, increasing consolidation and surface water connections limits the
ability of wetlands store water and increases the likelihood of ongoing downstream
flooding (Gabor et al., 2004; McCauley et al., 2015). These impacts, in addition to
warming temperatures, increased rainfall fraction, earlier snowmelt, and more multiple
day rainfall events as impacts of climate change, could result in an overall dramatic
increase in flows generated from snowmelt, rain-on-snowmelt, and rainfall runoff
processes (DeBeer et al., 2016).
In short, wetland drainage and consolidation causes significant changes in wetland and
watershed hydrology, as well as associated functions and ecological services. The
Watershed Resiliency and Restoration Program (WRRP) (Alberta Environment and
Parks, 2015) works to address issues of natural watershed functions in Alberta through
restoration of natural/green infrastructure (riparian areas and wetlands). The primary
objective of the WRRP is to “increase the natural ability of the province’s watersheds to
reduce the intensity, magnitude, duration and effects of flooding and drought through
watershed mitigation measures” (Alberta Environment and Parks, 2015, para. 6) by
promoting natural infrastructure on a watershed scale. Additionally, the program
addresses the impacts of past flooding and/or droughts through the restoration of
degraded priority areas of watersheds (Alberta Environment and Parks, 2015). Though
the program is voluntary, grants are available, especially for designated priority areas.
5.4 Groundwater Connectivity
Recharge of groundwater is an extremely important function of some wetlands. Prairie
wetland hydrology is extremely complex (Woo & Rowsell, 1993; Hayashi et al., 1998b;
van der Kamp et al., 2003; Fang et al., 2010; Pomeroy et al., 2010) with multiple factors
and connections involved. Depending on the landscape position of wetlands, variations in
climate, configuration of water tables, and the hydraulic conductivity of the underlying
substrate, the amount of groundwater recharge and hydrologic connectivity varies
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
46 | P a g e
(Hayashi et al., 2016; van der Kamp & Hayashi, 1998). As a result, prairie potholes can
have either groundwater recharge, flow-through, or discharge function (Hayashi et al.,
2016; van der Kamp & Hayashi, 1998) (Figure 15).
Figure 15. Diagram of groundwater flow under wetlands. Dashed lines indicate the
boundary between sediments with high and low hydraulic conductivity. Solid
arrows indicate the water table, stippled area indicate the effective zone of
groundwater flow, and the size of arrows of arrows indicate relative magnitude of
flow. An inter-till sand aquifer underlays the wetland complex. Adapted from
“Hydrology of Prairie Wetlands: Understanding the Integrated Surface-Water and
Groundwater Processes” by M. Hayashi, G. van der Kamp, & D.O. Rosenberry,
Wetlands, 36 (Suppl.2), p. 245. Copyright 2016 by Springer. Reprinted with
permission.
Research conducted by Hayashi et al. (2003) determined that ephemeral wetlands in
small closed depressional areas could play an important role in the hydrology and
ecology of many landscapes, by storing runoff water, recharging soil moisture and
shallow groundwater, and by providing food and habitat for many organisms. The clay-
rich soils of the prairies have low hydraulic conductivity, and they are even lower when
they are frozen. Water in most small prairie pothole wetlands readily, but slowly,
percolates to shallow groundwater, but deep aquifer recharge is negligible because of
clay-rich soils throughout much of the PPR (van der Kamp & Hayashi, 2009). Prairie
wetland groundwater recharge rate to shallow aquifers range from 5-40 mm/year (van der
Kamp & Hayashi, 1998; Hayashi et al. 1998a).
As a result of significant snowmelt runoff occurring over the frozen soil in early spring,
small (<1000 m2) depressions can store a large portion, or all, of snowmelt runoff in their
respective watersheds (Hayashi et al., 2003). Each depression has a small storage
capacity, but they collectively provide significant retention capacity, which adds up to
significant water storage, flood attenuation and groundwater recharge capacity. Most of
these wetlands only have out flows when their storage capacity is exceeded through
heavy rainfall events (van der Kamp and Hayashi, 1998). Ultimately, Hayashi et al.
(2003) demonstrated that ephemeral wetlands have several important functions including
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
47 | P a g e
the retention of snowmelt runoff, soil moisture replenishment, and shallow groundwater
recharge providing a cumulative benefit to the watershed.
Diversity in wetland hydrology is important for maintaining biodiversity (Hayashi et al.,
2003). As such, the wetland complex and their drainage basins in a given area (i.e. local
watersheds) should be approached as an interconnected hydrologic unit crucial for
integrated wetland ecosystem management (Hayashi et al., 2016; van der Kamp &
Hayashi, 2009).
5.5 Carbon Storage
Globally, wetlands account for 20-30% of total terrestrial carbon storage in soils (Mitsch
& Gosselink, 2007), with North American freshwater mineral soil wetlands holding
around 18% of that (Bridgham et al., 2006). The high productivity of prairie pothole
wetlands enables them to accumulate organic carbon faster than some other types of
wetlands (i.e. peatlands) (Badiou et al., 2011), making them net carbon sinks for carbon
despite some methane emissions. In a study done in the Broughton Creek watershed in
Manitoba, it was suggested that wetlands store the equivalent of 4 tons of CO2 per year
(Yang et al., 2008).
Carbon, along with oxygen and hydrogen, form the base of life, and contributes to the
biodiversity in wetlands. Organic carbon in the water column is exchanged with air,
sediment interstitial water, and biomass through biological processes. It can also settle
out of the water column. Prairie potholes tend to be naturally high in dissolved organic
carbon (DOC), though amounts can vary temporally with evaporation. Seasonal wetlands
also tend to higher concentrations of DOC (Brunet, 2011). It is also important to note that
natural wetlands have higher carbon sequestration capacity than constructed wetlands,
and it may take several decades for restored and constructed wetlands to reach
comparable levels (Kayranli et al., 2010).
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
48 | P a g e
6 Ecosystem Services
Ecosystem services provided by wetlands are important elements to include in education
and societal understanding of the value of wetlands. Ecosystem services (ES) are defined
as “the benefits people obtain from ecosystems” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,
2005, p. v). They can further be distinguished as provisioning, regulating, cultural, or
supporting services. Wetlands are important areas for the provision of ecosystem
services. Within the wetland complex, different wetlands have different functions and
values. To maintain these functions, ecosystem services, and values, wetland polices need
to consider the integrated value of wetland diversity (Hayashi et al., 2016). No net loss
policies should not only pertain to acreage or wetlands, but also to ecosystem functions,
values, and services.
Stakeholders at different spatial scales can have very different interests in ecosystem
services. A study conducted by Hein et al. (2006) suggests that ecosystem services such
as fishing and hunting are important at the municipal level, while recreation is most
relevant at the municipal and provincial level. However, nature conservation is often only
important in particular at the national and international level, though there are exceptions.
This scale differential in valuation of ecosystem services is important to consider in
application of support for the formulation or implementation of ecosystem management
plans (Hein et al., 2006).
In the United States, the Wetland Ecosystem Services Protocol for the United States
(WESPUS) was developed as a standardized method for use in rapid assessments of
ecosystem services (functions and values) of all wetland types throughout temperate
North America. It assesses services at the individual wetland scale, rather than across
large landscapes. However, WESPUS incorporates many landscape factors, especially as
they relate to the values of a wetland’s functions (Adamus, 2011). It is intended to
provide wetland managers with “consistent and accurate numeric estimates of the relative
ability of a wetland to support a wide variety of functions and values important to
society) (Adamus, 2011, p.1). WESPUS was used to develop a similar method for
Alberta, the Wetland Ecosystem Services Protocol for Southern Alberta (WESPAB)
(Adamus, 2013), currently known as ABWRET-A (Government of Alberta, 2015d).
6.1 Valuation and Ecological Services
The value of ecological areas in terms of ecological services (ES) and the valuation of
those services have been heavily studied since the 1970s. However, the value of
ecological goods and services has not been fully developed for wetlands, primarily as
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
49 | P a g e
land value changes, societal norms and values vary, and services are varied for wetlands
types.
Wetlands supply a variety of services. Some values are more quantifiable, and some are
not as quantifiable but may be more important on a larger scale (Mitsch & Gosselink,
2000). Often, primary consideration is given to the value of the provisioning services
(natural resources i.e. fiber, peat, growing food, animal meat) and the regulating services
done by natural systems (filtering, producing oxygen, flood protection, etc.). Odum
(1979) discussed how this might look in terms of types of wetland functions or values,
and how well their value can be quantified (i.e. monetarily). At the local and population
level, fish & wildlife, land value, and other component values are easily accounted for,
yet make up a relatively small part of the total value. At the ecosystem level, hydrologic
and biological productivity functions/values are hard to quantify, but increasing research
in this area has led to progress. Lastly, global scale functions and values, such as waste
and pollution assimilation, chemical cycling, and atmospheric stability have primarily
externalized economic value (Odum, 1979).
However, there are also the health, well-being, and cultural services (i.e. inspiration for
art, recreation, aesthetics, etc.) provided by wetlands. Cultural and non-use values have
traditionally been difficult in the economic valuation of ecosystem services and are often
excluded. In 2011, the Government of Alberta conducted a pilot study on ecosystem
services approaches for wetlands east of the City of Calgary. Several reports were
written, each focusing on different types of ES assessment approaches and values
(Government of Alberta, 2011b). The purpose of the study was to develop and
operationalize an ES approach as a tool to enhance wetland management decision-
making to include a variety of ES values, including cultural and non-use ecosystem
services.
6.2 Human Health and Wellbeing
In many countries around the world, wetlands are involved in complicated situations of
water safety, and perceptions as sources for vector-borne illness (Horwitz & Finlayson,
2011). In Canada, these worries are minimal due to our water treatment facilities and our
relative distance from wetlands in most cases. Interactions with wetlands and shallow
groundwater stores would be the exception.
However, as more work is done on how to manage and live with wetlands, as well as
understanding and appreciating their value, this work is incorporated into the movement
towards a wider recognition of the meaningful relationships that exist between the well-
being of people and the state of the environment they live in (Horwitz & Finlayson,
2011). This suggests that values attributed to wetlands (as well as other ecosystems)
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
50 | P a g e
ought to incorporate overall human well-being. One aspect includes the psychosocial
well-being and mental health impact. For many, especially landowners or those who visit
particular wetlands regularly, wetlands are a part of their sense of place, and a change in
these wetlands can have a strong impact of mental health (Higginbotham et al., 2007;
Horwitz & Finlayson, 2011). Factors of lifestyle are also related to the ecosystem
services, such as leisure, recreation and sporting activities, and education, provide both
physical and mental health, given natural affinities for wetlands, lakes, and watercourses
(Horwitz & Finlayson, 2011).
6.3 Cultural Values
As part of the human well-being aspect of wetlands, cultural and spiritual values are also
important to consider as these can be linked to mental well-being. Many individuals and
cultures hold a spiritual significance of water (Horwitz & Finlayson, 2011) and the
natural systems in general. Spiritual, inspirational, and place values are not products of
one kind of experience, but result from different kinds of experiences associated with
ecosystems (Chan et al., 2012), including wetlands. Specifically, for many cultures and
individuals, water has a spiritual significance (Horwitz & Finlayson, 2011).
Social and economic wetland values are often intertwined, or at least overlap, especially
in the agricultural context (Graymore & McBride, 2013). Some farmers already
understand the benefits of wetlands and already implement conservation measures to
enhance those benefits. As a result, natural resource management organizations involved
in wetland management should develop stronger relationships with landowners. In
conjunction with adaptive management strategies that acknowledge existing conservation
measures being implemented, integrating the knowledge of these other stakeholders
keeps them as allies and important resources.
As part of the ES pilot study, (Government of Alberta, 2011b), discussion was given to
cultural services and benefits associated with wetlands as “long term consequences for
cultural benefits are greater than the loss of individual wetlands” (Government of
Alberta, 2011b, p.71). These losses are not directly compensated for through the creation
of another wetland in another location.
The cultural services and benefits of wetlands and the experiences they provide come
from single wetlands, as well as from the wetland landscape. As a result, these cultural
perspectives help people, and decision makers, consider the cumulative and long-term
effects on wetlands. Loss of and impacts to wetlands influence people’s ability to use and
appreciate wetlands and wetland landscapes locally and regionally, and over the long
term. Understanding more about cultural services also adds support to avoidance,
mitigation and compensation decisions (Government of Alberta, 2011a).
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
51 | P a g e
6.3.1 Recreation
Recreation and aesthetic values of wetlands, and their associated activities are often
undervalued in management plans and policies. Public wetlands are often important sites
for other tourism and recreation activities, such as fishing, canoeing, photography,
hiking, bird watching, nature study, cross-country skiing, scientific study, camping, and
picnicking. Private and public wetlands can also be a significant source of revenue
regionally, especially from hunters (Johnson, 1984). As the net economic benefits
associated with wetlands-based recreation may be substantial, recreational functions
provided by wetlands must be considered for wetlands policy and management
(Bergström et al., 1990).
Though many recreational uses of wetlands exist because of high biodiversity at
wetlands, some recreational activities can foster conflicts between wildlife and human
use. Some types of recreation disturb wildlife and water bird nests (i.e. water-based
activities), while other types of recreation can negatively influence and degrade buffers,
altering the function of buffers. This can be especially true for urban wetlands where
trails and paths are often placed within the buffers/riparian areas (Weston et al., 2009).
A growing area of concern is the use of off-highway vehicle (OHV) in wetlands. Aside
from the impacts on vegetation and disruption of wildlife, OHV use in wetlands can
increase sedimentation and turbidity, altering the hydrology of the wetland (Ouren et al.,
2007). Contaminants could also enter wetlands through direct flushing of exposed
contaminants from fuel, oil, and emissions. There is also a concern about the potential for
adsorbed contaminants to be transported with precipitation runoff and into wetlands,
along with absorbed contaminants in plant materials. Erosion from riparian and upland
use of OHVs can also occur (Ouren et al., 2007).
Few regulations exist pertaining to OHV use in wetlands. Though the Alberta
government encourages OHV operators to avoid wetlands and cross only at bridges and
other designated crossings (Alberta Environment and Parks, 2016b; Alberta
Transportation, 2010), only the SSRP (Government of Alberta, 2014) has regulatory
details outlining OHV use on various public lands.
Nova Scotia, under its Off-highway Vehicles Act (2010), does not permit the operation of
off-highway vehicles in or on wetlands, swamps, or marshes unless they have a permit to
do so, or unless the wetland is covered by compacted or groomed snow of at least thirty
centimetres deep. This is the only Canadian example of strict prohibition of OHVs from
wetlands.
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
52 | P a g e
Management of wetlands through a management framework and process could help to
alleviate conflict and maximise the value of a site for wildlife and human recreation
interests as much as possible (Kirby et al., 2004). However, it is important to
acknowledge that in some cases this may not be possible.
6.4 Payment for Ecosystem Services
Many studies have been conducted to identify, examine, and approximate monetary
values for the spectrum of wetland services (i.e. Boyer & Polasky, 2004; Brander et al.,
2013; Cai et al., 2013; Gascoigne et al., 2011; Gren et al, 1994; Grygoruk et al., 2013;
Mann et al., 2014; Musamba et al., 2012; Pattison et al., 2011; Rafiq et al., 2014;
Söderqvist et al., 2000; Thompson & Young, 1992; Turner et al, 2000;). Of all the
ecosystems, wetlands seem to have attracted most of the attention of this approach, more
than riparian areas or even uplands (though past programs have targeted uplands and
native prairie), especially in the Prairie provinces. Though some studies can approximate
the value of the land plus the multitude of functions and their value, wetlands are
complex systems and likely have synergistic relationships that are almost impossible to
reduce to their components. In addition, there are the non-use and cultural/spiritual values
and functions that are arguably invaluable.
There are several reasons research into the valuation of ecosystem services began. First, it
was done to have a way to get those who destroy ecosystem services to pay compensation
and/or restoration. Secondly, it was to create a business case for conservation and
protection to society in general or for a certain sector, but also to create a basis for the
idea of compensating landowners to protect or manage the ecosystem services (i.e.
riparian areas, wetlands) for the rest of society. As well, it was important for regulators in
order to implement better regulation around wetland removal and compensation.
Though the services and functions of wetland ecosystems are increasingly recognized as
important from policy and management perspective, they are still considerably under-
valued by society (Badiou et al., 2011). Some of this may be due to the perceived
negative aspects of wetlands and the management of those challenges.
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
53 | P a g e
7 Additional Challenges in Wetland Management
Though wetlands provide many important benefits, functions, and services, there are
some additional significant challenges pertaining to wetland management. Whether they
are based on perceptions, human interference, or changing climate, these topics deserve
attention, and need to be understood in light of managing wetlands.
7.1 Beavers
Beavers, as a keystone species, modify the habitat of wetlands (or create wetlands) to
make them more beneficial for beavers, as well as for other species. Though beavers are
much maligned by some for the flooding effects of beaver ponds, appropriate land use for
long-term benefit can allow for co-existence and is essential for sustainability. Cows and
Fish (2013) developed a tool for decision-making about potential concerns and
opportunities developed a beaver management matrix for agricultural producers
regarding beavers on their land.
Beavers, through their channeling, dredging, and damming activities in wetlands,
increase the amount, and duration, of water storage in wetlands with implications for
drought and climate instability (Hood & Bayley, 2008). As well, beaver ponds tend to
have higher biodiversity the wetlands without beavers. This is true for invertebrates Hood
& Larson, 2014a), amphibians (Anderson, 2013; Anderson et al., 2014; Stevens et al.,
2007), waterfowl (Bromley & Hood, 2013; Shutler et al., 2000), and mammals (Nelner &
Hood, 2011). Beaver channels increase the complexity of the bed and shore, increasing
habitat for invertebrates at the base of the food chain. Increased complexity created by
beavers increases perimeter length, leading to higher perimeter to area ratios. In the
Miquelon Lake Provincial Park area, at the edge of the Battle River watershed, beaver-
modified wetlands foster higher levels biodiversity among many types of mammals than
at non-beaver-modified wetlands, both in the protected area and in an agricultural setting
(Nelner & Hood, 2011).
Despite their benefits, living with beavers can be challenging. Many areas have
recognized the place of beavers in maintaining ecosystems, and have developed ways on
working with them. Multiple states in the U.S. have seen the value of beavers, and have
developed different management techniques to achieve their desired results (see
Needham & Morzillo, 2011; Pollock et al., 2015; Tippie, 2010; Utah Division of Wildlife
Resources, 2010). Similar management efforts are beginning in Alberta. The Miistakis
Institute (Haddock, 2015), and Beaver County in collaboration with University of Alberta
(Hood & Yarmey, 2015), have been working on strategies on how to incorporate the use
of beavers in watershed stewardship and climate change adaptation.
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
54 | P a g e
There have also been discussions about implementing beaver restoration in some
location. This is often connected with the desire of wetland restoration and restoring the
species dependant upon wetland habitat. Though restoring wetlands and riparian areas
may bring beavers through migration, the idea of translocating beaver to assist with
wetland restoration has been proposed. Though some American jurisdictions allow (or at
least do not regulate) beaver translocation, it will be important to understand how beaver
restoration could fit into Alberta’s Wetland Policy and wetland restoration, especially
from a wetland replacement perspective (Haddock, 2015). It is also extremely important
to consult with all stakeholders who would be affected by such measures. Currently, it is
prohibited to have possession of a wild animal without a permit, or to release an animal
from captivity (Wildlife Act, 2000), as well as regulations on trapping beavers. No
guidelines exist on trapping and relocation of beavers, such as holding requirements,
suitable release habitat, and minimum distance from source location, or follow-up
monitoring (Specht, 2015).
7.2 Mosquitoes and Wetlands
Aside from beavers, the other type of organism commonly associated with wetlands that
can foster hostility and annoyance is the mosquito. Though mosquitos are vectors for
diseases, such as the West Nile virus in Canada (and many other countries around the
world), several studies suggest that mosquito control has primarily been needed in
constructed wetlands or stormwater ponds (i.e. Jackson et al., 2009). This is likely due to
several factors. Firstly, these waterbodies are where humans are most concentrated and
where a lot of recreation occurs, unlike in the remote peatlands or other natural wetlands.
Secondly, most naturally occurring wetlands have established ecosystems with well-
developed natural feedback mechanisms, such as predator-prey interactions, which tend
to keep opportunistic species (i.e. mosquitoes) in check (Chase & Shulman, 2009;
Greenway, 2005; Jackson et al., 2009). These natural checks and balances are not easily
duplicated in artificial systems. Most natural wetlands, especially beaver-modified
wetlands (Butts, 2001, 2004; Hood & Larson, 2014a), have fewer larval mosquitoes. This
may be due to healthy populations of predators (Chase & Shulman, 2009), or
unfavourable habitat characteristics (Hood & Larson, 2014a).
7.3 Invasive Species
Over the years, invasive species have become an issue in many altered or disturbed
wetlands, as well as those that are used as recreation sites in Alberta and throughout
North America. As defined in a report by Skinner (forthcoming), invasive species are
non-native species “whose introduction and spread causes or may cause harm to the local
environment, human health, society, and economic activity” (p.8). They often are able to
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
55 | P a g e
spread rapidly with few or no natural predators, and limited control mechanisms for them
exist. Though no records of invasive aquatic plants or animals have been reported in
wetlands of our watersheds, they may be there already, or could appear at any time.
Appropriate prevention and management actions are required at all times to ensure these
species do not gain a foothold in our watershed.
Invasive species are problematic biologically as they often out-compete native species,
leading to a decline in biodiversity an ecosystem function. They can also damage or
overtake the land and substrate. Up until recently, most of the recognized problematic
species have been plant species. Some of the more common/problematic invasive aquatic
plants in wetlands and riparian plants are (Alberta Invasive Plants Council, 2012):
Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) (shore)
Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) (aquatic)
Flowering-rush (Butomus umbellatus) (shore)
Yellow flag Iris (Iris pseudacorus) (shore)
Curly leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) (aquatic)
Himalayan Balsam (Impatiens glandulifera) (shore)
Didymo (Didymosphenia geminate) (aquatic)
European common reed (Phragmites australis australis) (shore/aquatic)
Salt Cedar (Tamarix spp.) (shore)
Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) (aquatic), and
Brazilian Elodea (Egeria densa)
Within the last decade, fish species, such as goldfish and Prussian carp (Carassius
gibelio), and bullhead catfish have become greater concerns, and are some of the
prohibited species in Alberta. Aquarium owners often release these fish species (as well
as some of the invasive aquatic plants) into ponds, wetlands, and lakes. In the past,
triploid (sterile) grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) were used for weed control in
urban waterbodies and rural dugouts and ponds in Alberta. Though this species is now
prohibited across Canada (Skinner, 2016), remnant populations may still persist.
The presence of zebra mussels in Lake Winnipeg has become a concern for Alberta. As
this species is now present in the watershed we are connected to, zebra mussels could
travel to our reaches through water connectivity, as well as via their most common mode
of transport – hitchhiking. These mussels, along with many invasive aquatic plant
species, can attach to boats, fishing gear, or caught in propellers. The Fisheries (Alberta)
Act (2015) has a list of 52 prohibited aquatic species, many of which could pose a threat
to wetlands.
Wild boar has become an issue in the Prairies. They damage upland habitat, and could be
potentially quite destructive for wetlands. Wild boars often make nests from cattails and
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
56 | P a g e
other wetland grasses. As they root and dig, they eat large amounts of native vegetation,
and even eat nesting waterfowl (Nature Conservancy of Canada, 2015). No reports of
wild board have been issued within the Battle River or Sounding Creek watersheds, but
as this species expands its range, it may enter our area.
Stormwater wetlands (and ponds) have recently become sites of concern for
invasive/exotic species through the intentional release of aquarium pets. This has led to
goldfish infestations of stormwater sites in various locations throughout Alberta (K.
Wilson, personal communication, December 8, 2016). Though this has not yet been an
issue in the Battle River and Sounding Creek watersheds, the potential exists. It is illegal
to intentionally release aquarium pets into the wild (Alberta Environment and Parks,
2016a; Fisheries (Alberta) Act, 2000). Some aquarium plant and fish/animal species are
invasive and can become a threat to natural aquatic ecosystems.
Though invasive species have found niches in some of our wetlands, some management
is possible, such as killing any non-native fish you find. Ensuring these species do not
spread is crucial to maintain wetland health and biodiversity. Increased management of
invasive species will be essential to reduce stress on wetlands in a changing climate
(Erwin, 2009).
7.4 Wetlands and Climate Change
As climate change progresses, the role of and impact on wetlands is uncertain. How
wetlands respond to climate change will vary depending on factors such as geographic
location, hydrology, morphology, vulnerability, and current & future socio-economic
effects (Cox & Campbell, 1997). Erwin (2009) suggested that climate change with
impact wetlands directly and indirectly in two major ways through the effects of
temperature changes, changes in hydrology and land use. There will be an overall decline
in the number of functioning wetlands and their functional capacity and shifts in
geographic location of wetland types. Wetland habitats will be impacted climate change
differently on a regional and watershed level, so it is important to recognize specific
management and restoration issues will require examination by habitat (Erwin, 2009).
Based on climate modelling done by Johnson et al. (2005) (see also Mitsch and
Hernandez, 2013), the western portion of the PPR (Alberta and Saskatchewan) will likely
see a drying trend, whereas the more eastern and southern parts will likely get wetter.
This drying, compounded by any continual loss, will reduce both the number and quality
of wetlands in the Alberta portion of the PPR. Shorter pond permanence, change in
permanence, increase in frost-free days, and the resulting less dynamic vegetation cycles
will further reduce productivity in much of Canada’s western PPR wetlands that have
may have already showed a decline due to climate change (Johnson et al., 2010; Renton
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
57 | P a g e
et al., 2015; Werner et al., 2013). These changes will influence biological,
biogeochemical, and hydrological functions in wetland ecosystems, as well as the
associated socio-economic benefits (Cox & Campbell, 1997).
The climate and wetlands of the PPR should be monitored closely in the future to look
for signs of higher evaporative demand and reduced pond permanence to prepare for with
less-productive wetlands, especially in western Canada (Millett et al., 2009; Mitsch and
Hernandez 2013). More long-term wetland monitoring sites in the PPR that could better
detect early signs of warming on water levels and pond permanence would greatly benefit
adaptive management efforts (Conley & van der Kamp, 2001).
As wetlands are important areas for net in carbon storage (Badiou et al 2011; Mitsch &
Gosselink, 2000), wetland restoration could be a potential climate change mitigation tool
(Badiou et al., 2011). Constructed wetlands are higher emitters of carbon dioxide and
methane than natural wetlands, so these should to be designed and managed properly
(Kayranli et al., 2010).
With their ability to store water, wetlands help manage extremes in water quantity.
Wetlands that have been altered by beaver activity by the creation of channels that
distribute water far beyond the waterbody’s edge, dams that hold water and sediment, and
have increased depth and complexity, foster the creation of healthy wetland and riparian
areas and are more resistant to disturbance in climate (Hood & Bayley, 2008; Hood &
Larson, 2014b). This applies not only to natural cycles of drought, but also to increased
climatic variability, loss of hydrostationarity (the previously used water management
approaches based on precipitation patterns of the past expected to remain stable into the
future), and extreme weather events that are likely to accompany climate change and
disruption.
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
58 | P a g e
8 Governance and Legislation
Many North American jurisdictions have adopted the hierarchical mitigation direction of
1) avoidance, 2) minimize impacts, and 3) compensation in wetland management (Clare
et al., 2011). Complimenting this, the no net loss policy has also frequently been used.
However, operationally, compensation has become the preferred mechanism in many
jurisdictions.
In this section, various policies, legislation, and other governance tools that have been
developed are discussed. Though these samples are North American, various European
and Asian countries have also developed policies regarding wetland management.
8.1 Federal
Formal federal legislation does not exist in Canada for the protection and conservation of
wetlands. Canada does have a national wetland policy. The objective of the Federal
Policy on Wetland Conservation put out by the Government of Canada (1991) is to
“promote the conservation of Canada's wetlands to sustain their ecological and socio-
economic functions, now and in the future” (p.5). Wetland conservation is supported
throughout the full extent of federal decisions and responsibilities. The Policy is not a
regulatory document, though the federal Cabinet “directed that it should be applied to all
policies, plans, programs, projects, and activities carried out by the federal government”
(Lynch-Stewart et al, 1996, p.7).
By working in cooperation with provinces and territories, the Federal Government of
Canada strives to achieve the several goals:
maintenance of the functions and values derived from wetlands throughout
Canada;
no net loss of wetland functions on all federal lands and waters;
enhancement and rehabilitation of wetlands in areas where the continuing loss or
degradation of wetlands or their functions have reached critical levels;
recognition of wetland functions in resource planning, management and economic
decision-making with regard to all federal programs, policies and activities;
securement of wetlands of significance to Canadians;
recognition of sound, sustainable management practices in sectors such as forestry
and agriculture that make a positive contribution to wetland conservation while
also achieving wise use of wetland resources; and
utilization of wetlands in a manner that enhances prospects for their sustained and
productive use by future generations (Government of Canada, 1991, p.5-6).
In conjunction with the Policy, the Government of Canada also released an
implementation guide (Lynch-Stewart et al., 1996). This guide was designed to “assist
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
59 | P a g e
federal land managers when making decisions that may affect wetlands”, as well as to
“assist departmental policy makers in developing "customized" departmental plans and
directives for implementing the Policy” (Lynch-Stewart et al., 1996, p.7), by providing
a reference on policy interpretation, explaining the wording and intent of Policy
statements;
practical information on the roles and responsibilities of federal land managers
and the Canadian Wildlife Service, as well as on the processes and tools for
implementing those responsibilities; and,
references and resources available to assist land managers in carrying out their
wetland conservation responsibilities. (Lynch-Stewart et al., 1996, p.7).
There is federal legislation that indirectly addresses wetland conservation and
compensation. Under the Migratory Bird Convention Act, no disturbance to nests or
nesting birds is permitted during breeding and nesting periods (approx. early April to late
August in most parts of Canada). Some bird species have more specific legislation
requirements under the Species at Risk Act. Industrial activities can affect migratory birds
by disturbing land (i.e. road construction, clearing trees), sensory disturbance (i.e. noise,
light), and through emergencies (i.e. fires, spills) (Alberta Wetland Policy, 2016)
In addition, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Fisheries Act, the
Navigable Waters Protection Act, and the Convention on Biological Diversity
(Convention on Biological Diversity Secretariat, n.d.) may have implications for projects
that impact wetlands or wetland species in Alberta, and for Alberta wetlands in general.
The extent to which these requirements are applied and enforced is a topic of much
controversy, and further discussions about collaborative management are needed.
The lands of CFB Wainwright, located within the Battle River watershed, is owned by
the Department of Defence. Like other federal ministries, it adheres to the Federal Policy
on Wetland Conservation (Government of Canada, 1991). Additionally, as a leaseholder
of Alberta Public lands, they are also must the objective of Provincial and Federal Acts,
policies, and regulations regarding wetlands. CFB Wainwright is developing the
strategies to protect wetlands, including use and development of an environmental
awareness map, oil & gas management and development, grazing agreements, managing
beaver activity, and designated fording sites (CFB/ASU Wainwright – Base
Environment, 2013). The aim is to effectively and sustainably manage land use and
natural resources while providing realistic military training (CFB/ASU Wainwright –
Base Environment, 2013).
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
60 | P a g e
8.2 Provincial
Aside from Alberta, several provinces in Canada, including Ontario (Ministry of Natural
Resources and Forestry, 2016), British Columbia (Wetland Stewardship Partnership,
2010), Nova Scotia (Nova Scotia Environment, 2011), and P.E.I. (P.E.I. Fisheries,
Aquaculture and Environment, 2007), have developed wetland strategies, policies, and
other management tools that influence wetland governance. To maintain a regional
context for the purpose of this report, this section will focus on the Prairie Provinces, as
they are all part of the PPR.
8.2.1 Alberta
8.2.1.1 Provincial-level policy
The Water Act is the primary legislation in Alberta that works to protect watercourses
and waterbodies on private and public lands, including wetlands. Unlike the Alberta
Wetland Policy (AESRD, 2013), the Water Act protects ephemeral waterbodies. Other
pieces of legislation, such as Municipal Government Act, Environmental Protection and
Enhancement Act, and the Public Lands Act all contain different aspects of wetland
management. For a summary of how these acts are involved, please refer to the Alberta
Water Council’s Recommendations for a New Alberta Wetland Policy (Alberta Water
Council, 2008a).
The Water Act is the primary legislation in Alberta that enables management and
protection of water and waterbodies on private and public lands. The Water Act is the
enabling legislation for the Alberta Wetland Policy (AESRD, 2013), as wetlands are
considered waterbodies under the act. Other pieces of legislation, such as Municipal
Government Act, Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, and the Public Lands
Act are also relevant for wetland management.
Alberta’s Wetland Management in the Settled Area of Alberta: An Interim Policy
(Alberta Water Resources Commission, 1993b) was developed in response to increased
public awareness about wetland values and the need for wetland management in the
White Area of Alberta. This policy, along with Beyond Prairie Potholes (Alberta Water
Resources Commission, 1993a), were created in response to increased public awareness
about wetland values and the need for wetland management. The stated goal of the
interim policy was to “sustain the social, economic and environmental benefits that
functioning wetlands provide, now and in the future” (Alberta Water Resources
Commission, 1993b, p.1). It was in this document that the mitigation hierarchy was
introduced with preference given to conserving sloughs/marshes in their natural state,
then mitigating degradation or loss at or near the site of disturbance, then lastly
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
61 | P a g e
enhancing, restoring, or creating sloughs/marshes in other areas where wetlands have
been lost or degraded (Alberta Water Resources Commission, 1993b).
In 2013, the Alberta Wetland Policy (AESRD, 2013) replaced the interim policy, with
full implementation in both the Green and White areas of Alberta in 2016, and provides
policy, direction, and tools to support wetland management in the province. Wetlands are
a key component of watershed health in and the Alberta Wetland Policy is integral to the
achievement of all three goals of Water for Life. The Alberta Wetland Policy “provides
the strategic direction and tools required to make informed management decisions in the
long-term interest of Albertans” (AESRD, 2013, p.2), with the goal of conserving,
restoring, protecting, and managing Alberta’s wetlands “to sustain the benefits they
provide to the environment, society, and economy” (AESRD, 2013, p.2). The Alberta
Wetland Policy is supported by a number of tools and directives, including the Wetland
Identification and Delineation Directive, the Wetland Assessment and Impact Report
Directive, the Wetland Mitigation Directive, the Alberta Wetland Restoration Directive,
the Guide for Assessing Permanence of Wetland Basins, the Alberta Merged Wetland
Inventory (AMWI), the Alberta Wetland Classification System, and the Alberta Wetland
Rapid Evaluation Tool (ABWRET).
The Alberta Wetland Policy addresses wetland values and functions by using a relative
wetland value based on the following functions: biodiversity and ecological health, water
quality improvement, hydrologic function, and human uses. Value categories of A to D
are based on criteria related to these functions, as well as in consideration of the relative
abundance wetlands in a given region of the province. The value categories are used to
determine replacement values, in the case that wetland impacts are unavoidable. The
Alberta Wetland Mitigation Directive (Government of Alberta, 2015b) is a key
component of the Alberta Wetland Policy. The stated goal of the directive is to “inform
decision making to avoid and minimize negative impacts to wetlands and, where
necessary, replace lost wetland area and value”. The Alberta Wetland Restoration
Directive guides the process for replacement of wetlands and wetland values.
If there is a proposed direct or indirect impact to a wetland, an application for an approval
under the Water Act must be submitted; the requirements in the Alberta Wetland Policy
directives are administered through the approvals process. Submission of regulatory
documents in support of an application to cause impacts to a wetland must be
authenticated by a qualified individual. Alberta Environment and Parks has collaborated
with ten professional organizations in the province to develop the Practice Standard for
Wetland Science, Design, and Engineering. In addition to holding a designation with a
professional organization, a practitioner must meet specific competency and professional
experience requirements in order to authenticate regulatory documents. Under this
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
62 | P a g e
system, the professional organization evaluates their members for competency and scope
of practice in the fields of wetland science, design and engineering.
The applicant must demonstrate sufficient consideration of the mitigation hierarchy
avoid, minimize, and in the case of unavoidable impacts, meet the requirements for
replacement.
The priority is to replace wetlands near the point of original wetland loss. Wetland
restoration on private land is voluntary. As defined in the Wetland Restoration Directive,
there are three options for restorative replacement: payment to the in-lieu fee program
allocated to restorative replacement with wetland restoration completed by a Wetland
Replacement Agent, purchase of credits from a third-party wetland bank, or permitee-
responsible replacement. It is anticipated that municipalities, environmental non-
governmental organizations, consultants, and other organizations will be able to deliver
wetland replacement services.
\Wetland conservation and restoration goals are supported by various tools enabled under
the Policy but stewardship is also recognized in the Policy as an important component of
effective wetland management. Stewardship will be advanced through education and
awareness, voluntary programs, and/or incentives to encourage wetland conservation,
restoration, and protection. Alberta Environment and Parks is currently working with
stakeholders to explore opportunities for enhanced wetland stewardship, including the
creation of a wetland banking program.
Several grants are currently available for creating and restoring wetlands. For example,
Watershed Resiliency and Restoration Program (WRRP), through Alberta Environment
and Parks (AEP), and the Growing Forward 2 program, though Alberta Agriculture and
Forestry (AAF), provide financial assistance for restoration or creation of wetlands.
Replacement agents like DUC may also pay landowners for voluntary restoration (T.
Scott, personal communication, October 17, 2016).
Another joint program through Growing Forward 2 and Government of Alberta is the
Agricultural Watershed Enhancement (AWE) Program. AWE aims to promote wetland
restoration and riparian health BMPs by producers within the agricultural sectors
(AESRD, 2014a).
Accompanying the new wetland policy are several directives. The Alberta Wetland
Identification and Delineation Directive (Government of Alberta, 2015a) is to improves
both the accuracy and consistency of delineating wetlands using standardized
identification and delineation methods. The directive can also be used for other related
initiatives such as creating wetland inventories, land use planning, and establishing
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
63 | P a g e
setbacks (Government of Alberta, 2015a). The Alberta Wetland Mitigation Directive
(Government of Alberta, 2015b) informs “decision making to avoid and minimize
negative impacts to wetlands and, where necessary, replace lost wetland area and value”
(p.2). This directive lays out how proponents should proceed in avoiding and minimizing
impacts, as well as what must be included in a Wetland Minimization Proposal, and how
they plan to address reclamation where needed. The Wetland Replacement Matrix,
replacements proposals and conditions, and replacement fees are also discussed.
In 2016, the Canadian Institute of Resources Law, with Alberta NAWMP Partnership,
released the revised Alberta Wetlands: A Law and Policy Guide (Kwasniak, 2016)
developed a document outlining the legal and policy status of wetlands in Alberta. This
document outlining the legal and policy status of wetlands in Alberta, and provides an in-
depth look at wetland and riparian areas within the international, federal, and Alberta
legal framework.
8.2.1.2 Regional
Within Alberta, several regional approaches influence the management of wetlands
within the Battle River and Sounding Creek watersheds. Some pertain specifically to the
Battle River and Sounding Creek watersheds, and some are regional initiatives or
organizations that operate within the watersheds.
The Approved Water Management Plan for the Battle River Basin (Alberta) (AESRD,
2014b) outlines that maintenance and restoration of wetlands is preferred to drainage. It
also stipulates that wetland compensation for drainage within the basin must be applied
within the Battle River Basin, and be located as near as is practical to the wetland where
impact occurred. Other guidelines with respect to expansion of drainage infrastructure are
included.
Though they do not cover all of the Battle River and Sounding Creek watersheds, the
drainage districts also play an important role in managing wetlands. The Drainage
District Act allows the district to enforce the closure or removal of any unauthorised
works including existing ditch modification, culvert installation or new construction.
Though previously involved in wetland drainage, drainage districts could provide a
mechanism and opportunity to control wetland modification, especially in coordination
with the new Alberta Wetland Policy. Districts have been able to enforce the reduction of
wetland removal by refusal to improve ditches that would allow work, and by restricting
outflow with smaller diameter culverts. If the districts are able to modify their assessment
format in the future, there could be opportunities to directly fund wetland retention or
increase assessments for wetland removal (A. Corbett, personal communication,
November 19, 2016).
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
64 | P a g e
Work has also begun by North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) in
collaboration with other regional planning bodies (Land Use Framework, Alberta
Environment and Parks, WPACs, and municipalities) to develop regional wetland
management objectives. Though this work is still in the preliminary stages, setting
regional wetland objectives would support the work of the Wetland Policy by setting
recommendations for how the wetland policy outcomes could be accomplished in a given
region. This approach would take regional context and values into account, and ensure
wetland planning occurs across the province at appropriate scales. As a tool to ensure key
wetlands and wetland habitats are conserved, it would also help ensure all stakeholders
are involved to help make trade-off decisions as needed in regards to wetland restoration,
conservation, and disturbance.
8.2.1.3 Municipal
The 2013 Municipal Water Policy on Wetlands by AUMA (2013) developed to provide a
municipal perspective on the implementation the new Alberta wetland policy laid out
several policy direction statements suggesting how municipalities and their partners can
work towards conserving and restoring wetlands. The implementation of this policy will
be ongoing as the provincial partners roll out the wetland policy.
Municipalities also have some control through the Municipal Government Act over
waterbodies and land use in their jurisdiction. Land use bylaws and municipal develops
plans are a couple of these tools that can be used to manage upland land use,
buffers/setbacks, associated riparian areas, and other land management aspects of
wetland management. Several municipalities within the Battle River Watershed suggest
setbacks from wetlands and other environmentally sensitive/significant areas within their
land use bylaws, area structure plans, and municipal development plans (i.e. County of
Wetaskiwin, Leduc County, City of Camrose & Camrose County).
Other municipalities have developed stand-alone wetland policies/plans regarding the
management and conservation of wetlands. The Town of Strathmore’s Wetland
Conservation Plan was created primarily to “identify, map, and classify all of the
wetlands located within the current boundaries of the Town of Strathmore and within the
proposed expansion area” (Sadler, 2005, p.3), including those of environmental
significance. Strathmore’s Wetland Conservation Policy (Town of Strathmore, 2007)
outlines principles and strategies for a Wetland Policy Implementation Plan, including
setbacks, development directions, and staff resources.
The purpose of the Rocky View County’s Wetland Conservation and Management Policy
is to provide polices and procedures to help Rocky View County conserve and manage
wetlands while adopting or amending other municipal bylaws and operating polices and
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
65 | P a g e
plans. This policy will also provide the County, the development industry, and all other
stakeholders “with clear direction for the use and development of all municipal and
private lands in proximity to wetlands” (Rocky View County, 2010, p. 1).
The role of Calgary’s Wetland Conservation Plan is to “provide policies and procedures
for the conservation of wetlands within the city of Calgary (City of Calgary, 2004, p.30),
and to help Calgarians gain an awareness, understanding, and appreciation of the benefits
of wetlands.
Edmonton’s Wetland Strategy was created to unite “efforts to conserve wetlands into a
single document, in order to strengthen and coordinate the City’s wetland conservation
approach, raise the profile of the City’s work in this area, and help to identify areas for
improvement in current wetland conservation efforts” (City of Edmonton, 2012, p.1). Its
major goals include “secure Edmonton’s wetlands as part of the city’s ecological
network, manage Edmonton’s wetlands to maximize their ecological function, and
engage Edmontonians to support wetland conservation” (City of Edmonton, 2012, p.1).
8.2.2 Saskatchewan
Currently, no provincial wetland policy or legislation has been approved in
Saskatchewan, though new regulations regarding agricultural drainage were recently
updated. The Agricultural Water Management Strategy (Water Security Agency, 2015)
considers the protection and retention of wetlands when granting approvals, with the
possibility of need for compensation or complete retention of the wetland.
Some sources have suggested the development and implementation of individual wetland
management plans by landowners (Huel et al., 2000). This idea could be more easily
implemented when combined with potential support from the provincial Farm
Stewardship Program (FSP) that could provide Saskatchewan producers with financial
assistance to implement BMPs to “help maintain or improve the quality of soil, water, air,
or biodiversity resources” (Government of Saskatchewan, n.d., para. 1).
The City of Saskatoon developed a wetland policy (City of Saskatoon, 2013b) to support
stated wetland conservation and management objectives (City of Saskatoon, 2013a).
These objectives include the responsible stewardship of wetland resources as part of a
holistic approach to urban development, and “to ensure that natural and constructed
wetland resources are integrated into the urban environment, and to conserve the
biodiversity and function of significant wetland resources prior to, during, and after land
development” (City of Saskatoon, 2013a, section 9.5.1).
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
66 | P a g e
8.2.3 Manitoba
Currently, no provincial wetland policy or legislation has been approved in Manitoba,
though a policy framework for wetlands has been proposed (R. McDougal, personal
communication, April 8, 2016). Under the proposed policy framework, larger class 3, 4,
and 5 wetlands (as classified by Stewart & Kantrud, 1971) would be protected from
drainage by regulation. This framework will also utilize the no net loss approach with the
mitigation hierarchy of avoidance, minimization, and compensation (R. McDougal,
personal communication, April 8, 2016).
Under The Water Rights Act, there is a draft concept of the Drainage, Retention, and
Water Control Works Regulation. The goal is to create a regulatory approach to manage
surface water, drainage, and water retention to “reduce the risks to property from excess
water, safeguard human health, conserve and protect wetlands and other sensitive habitat,
provide resilience to droughts, reduce the risk of flooding by retaining water within the
watershed, and minimize the loss of nutrients from the landscape and provide a
mitigation framework for appropriate compensation for unavoidable wetland drainage”
(Government of Manitoba, 2014a, p.12). Ideally, this will be achieved by implementing a
watershed-based planning framework that incorporates the concept of ‘no net increase in
water export’, a concept that suggests that the current total volume of water leaving the
watershed will not increase as a result of human activities such as drainage (Government
of Manitoba, 2014b)
One aspect of this new approach is to regulate the protection of wetlands from on-going
losses with the goal of no-net loss of wetland benefits. This would include protection for
all Class III, IV, and V wetlands (as defined by Stewart and Kantrud (1971)) and
requiring licences for all works impacting these wetlands, and cost and tools for
compensation including direct restoration or purchase of wetland credits (Government of
Manitoba, 2014b).
Winnipeg itself manages wetlands within the context of ecologically significant natural
lands (City of Winnipeg, 2007). Theses are sensitive lands and natural heritage sites,
which the City of Winnipeg has identified as being important to create a vibrant and
healthy city that prioritizes a high quality of life for all its citizens (City of Winnipeg,
2007). The City of Winnipeg aims to be a city “which has protected important pockets of
natural flora and fauna representative of the original natural ecosystems and lands
susceptible to damage from flooding or erosion for the enrichment of the quality of life of
the citizens of Winnipeg” (City of Winnipeg, 2007, p.4).
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
67 | P a g e
8.3 International
Many other nations experience challenges when dealing with wetland management,
especially in growing agricultural nations. To maintain a regional context, focus will be
given to our neighbouring nations in North America.
8.3.1 North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP)
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) is an international
partnership between Canada, the United States, and Mexico created in 1986 that focuses
on habitat conservation to sustain waterfowl and other water and shore bird populations
(Alberta NAWMP Partnership, 2015). The NAWMP also aims to provide a strategy for
the long-term protection of wetlands and associated uplands habitats needed by
waterfowl and other migratory birds in North America (FWS, 2016b). They work with
local regional joint ventures to facilitate local actions.
NAWMP, in conjunction with the Prairie Habitat Joint Venture, works to facilitate
educational opportunities and stewardship actions throughout the Canadian Prairies, as
well as assisting in the role-out of the new Alberta Wetland Policy implementation
(Prairie Habitat Joint Venture, 2014). In the U.S., the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture
includes all the U.S. states part of the PPR.
8.3.2 United States
As a neighbour and a NAWMP partner, understanding the legislation and policies that
the United States have in place is important, especially in terms of future collaboration.
Many states have experienced significant wetland loss post-European settlement. Some
have worked to protect remaining wetlands, and worked to restore some of what was lost.
Like Canada, the U.S. has adopted the no net loss policy (Clare et al., 2011, Hough &
Robertson, 2009). In the United States, five federal agencies share the responsibility for
protecting and managing wetlands. These include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (primarily coastal
wetlands), and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Additionally,
Department of Commerce, Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense, and
the Department of the Interior also have some responsibility, along with state
governments, in managing wetlands.
Clean Water Act
The primary legislation concerning the management of wetlands in the U.S. is the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (more commonly known as the Clean Water Act)
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
68 | P a g e
(Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] 2015b). The Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates
discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States, and water quality standards
for all contaminants in surface water (EPA, 2015b), and specifically, Section 404 was
intended to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters, including wetlands” (EPA, 2016b, para.1).
Within the Clean Water Act is the Clean Water Rule. Broadly, the “Clean Water Rule
ensures that waters protected under the Clean Water Act are more precisely defined,
more predictably determined, and easier for businesses and industry to understand”
(EPA, 2015c, para.1). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps
of Engineers administers and enforces the Clean Water Rule. The “Clean Water Rule
protects streams and wetlands that are scientifically shown to have the greatest impact on
downstream water quality and form the foundation of our nation’s water resources”
(EPA, 2015a, p.1). Activities such as planting, harvesting, and moving livestock are
exempt from Clean Water Act regulation, therefore Clean Water Rule does not apply to
those areas. Only waters that were historically covered by the Clean Water Act are
protected. However, “[I]t does not interfere with or change private property rights, or
address land use” (EPA, 2015a, p.1).
The North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) was passed in 1989 by the
United States Congress to conserve North American wetland ecosystems and waterfowl
and the other migratory birds and other fish and wildlife that depend on these habitats
(North American Wetlands Conservation Council (Canada), n.d.). The NAWCA grant
program provides funding grants to wetlands conservation projects in the United States,
Canada, and Mexico through (FWS, 2016b). Projects are approved through Migratory
Bird Conservation Commission (established under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act),
all aimed at carrying out the NAWMP objectives (FWS, 2016a).
The Farm Bill, introduced in 1985 (amended in 1990, 1996, and 2002), contains the
Highly Erodible Land Conservation and Wetland Conservation Compliance provisions
(also known as Swampbuster). These provisions were put in place to “remove certain
incentives to produce agricultural commodities on converted wetlands or highly erodible
land” (United States Department of Agriculture [USDA], n.d.d, para.1).
Like in Canada, other legislation may also affect wetland management such as
Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, North American Wetlands
Conservation Act, and other legislation that impacts land use, water, sensitive areas, and
wildlife. There also many other regulations and executive orders that impact wetland
management on a federal level.
There are also several federal programs to aid agricultural landowners and managers with
sensitive lands and wetland management. The Conservation Reserve Program creates an
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
69 | P a g e
agreement to pay farmers to take environmentally sensitive land out of agricultural
production and plant species that will improve environmental health and quality (USDA,
n.d.b). Under the CRP, the Farmable Wetland Program (FWP) aims to restore previously
farmed wetlands and wetland buffers. The FWP is a voluntary program, and participants
must agree to restore the wetlands, establish plant cover, and not use the land enrolled in
the program for commercial purposes (USDA, n.d.c).
The Agricultural Conservation Easement Program provides financial and technical
assistance to aid in the conservation of agricultural lands, wetlands, and their related
benefits and functions (USDA, n.d.a). Under the Agricultural Land Easements
component of this program, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) helps First
Nations, state and local governments, and non-governmental organizations protect
agricultural lands in production and limit non-agricultural uses of the land. Under the
Wetlands Reserve Easements component, NRCS works to restore, protect and enhance
wetlands enrolled in the program (USDA, n.d.a).
The National Wetland Condition Assessment (NWCA) (EPA, 2016a) was done to answer
questions about how well wetlands in the U.S. support healthy ecological conditions, and
to document the prevalence of key stressors at the national and regional scale. With
ongoing status and trend reports every 5 years, this program aims to (EPA, 2016a;
Hoeven & Dwelle, 2014):
Collaborate with states and tribes to develop and build capacity for
complementary monitoring and assessment tools, analytical approaches, and data
management technology to aid wetland protection and restoration programs;
Create a robust, statistically-valid set of wetland data; and
Develop baseline information to evaluate progress made with wetland protection
and restoration programs.
Some states have wetland monitoring programs that support and participate in the
NWCA, including some mentioned in the next section, many of which have experienced
substantial wetland losses over their history post-European settlement.
8.3.2.1 State-level policy
Several states in the U.S. are also part of the PPR. These include Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa (and a very small piece in Nebraska). Understanding
what state-specific policies and legislation exist in these states is valuable in
understanding how we might work in tandem to address issues specific to this region.
Since 2012, Ducks Unlimited (and Ducks Unlimited Canada) have been working on a
cross-border initiative Preserving Our Prairies. The aim of the initiative is to protect and
restore grasslands and wetlands in the Prairie Pothole Region by working with
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
70 | P a g e
landowners and managers to protect wetlands and grasslands, and encouraging them to
plant waterfowl-friendly crops such as winter wheat (Ducks Unlimited, n.d.). This
initiative in focused on habitat throughout North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana,
Wyoming, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. Though Wyoming is not part of the
PPR, it spans the area between Montana and the Dakotas.
Each state also has one or more Wetland Management Districts (WMDs) (Figure 16). In
most states, these WMDs cover the majority of the PPR within that state, except
Nebraska. WMDs are units by which the National Wildlife Refuge System acquires
wetlands and grasslands to manage as Waterfowl Production Areas (FWS, 2014). Most
WMDs have completed comprehensive conservation plans. These 15-year plans provide
long-term guidance for management decisions for wetlands, set goals, objectives, and
strategies to accomplish refuge purposes, and identify future needs of the area. Within
these districts, land management tools and methods are utilized to manage wetlands.
Figure 16. Wetland Management Districts of states in the PPR (from FWS, 2014).
8.3.2.1.1 Montana As our closest American neighbour Montana should be considered an important partner
in wetland management. Extensive work has been done in Montana evaluating impacts of
hydrologic changes on different species (Vance et al., 2013) and developing
recommended limits to the amount of hydrologic alteration to reduce negative impacts on
the dependent biology and associated management actions (Phelan, et al., 2013).
Montana’s overarching wetland goal is no net loss of the state’s remaining wetland
resource base, and facilitate an increase in the quality and quantity of wetlands in
Montana. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) coordinates and
provides state direction to protect wetlands and riparian areas for their water quality,
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
71 | P a g e
water quantity, habitat, and flood control functions. The DEQ and the Montana Wetland
Council (MWC) developed, and implements, the state’s wetland and riparian plan
(Montana Wetland Council, 2013). The strategic framework list several strategic
directions, including (Montana Wetland Council, 2013, p. v-vi)
support and participate in on-the-ground projects and practices that foster wetland
and riparian restoration, protection, and management and net gain of wetlands;
support the completion, maintenance, and dissemination of statewide digital
wetland and riparian mapping information, and provide training and support to
use the data in planning, protection, and restoration decision-making;
collection, integration, and use of monitoring and assessment data to inform local
planning, protection, restoration, and landscape-level decision-making;
help local, state, tribal, and federal governments to plan, implement, and manage
information, resources, and tools needed to protect wetland and riparian areas for
their water quality, water quantity, habitat, and flood control benefits;
contribute understanding and knowledge regarding the impacts of energy
development, climate change, limited water resources, and invasive aquatic
species on wetlands and riparian resources, and promote approaches to minimize
harmful impacts; and
foster public awareness and understanding of the valuable ecologic, economic,
and public safety functions of wetlands and riparian, and encourage and support
public and private actions.
The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) is the primary public source for
wetland and riparian mapping, and monitoring and assessment tools in Montana. Science-
based information on the distribution, extent, condition and biodiversity significance of
the state’s wetlands and riparian areas is all publically available (Vance & Chutz, 2016).
The MTNHP collaborate with the Wetland Program at Montana DEQ on research
projects and development of database tools, designing workshop and course content for
training, and teaching wetland plant identification workshops provided. The strategic
actions outlined in the Wetland Program Plan (Vance & Chutz, 2016) address all seven
of the current Five-Year Strategic Directions set out in the Montana Wetland Council’s
(2013) strategic framework.
8.3.2.1.2 North Dakota North Dakota does not have any current wetland regulations, policies, or legislation for a
wetland mitigation or conservation plan. At one time the state had adopted an overall no
net loss goal, but it was repealed in 1997 (Association of State Wetland Managers, 2015).
Aside from the federal legislation, wetlands are managed (to a certain degree) under
North Dakota’s Water Quality Monitoring Strategy (Hoeven & Dwelle, 2014). As a part
of this strategy, the Wetland Monitoring and Assessment Program develops biological
indicators and assessment methodologies for wetlands and use these indicators and
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
72 | P a g e
methods to monitor and assess wetland condition at varying spatial scales. The program
also develops spatial analysis methods and tools to identify potential sites for wetland
restoration and creation, and apply these methods in a watershed planning and restoration
context (Hoeven & Dwelle, 2014). The North Dakota Department of Health participated
in the NWCA as part of the wetland monitoring program.
8.3.2.1.3 South Dakota South Dakota does not have any wetland regulations, policies, or legislation for a wetland
mitigation or conservation plan. Though out of date, the work done by the South Dakota
Interagency Wetlands Working Group (2001) examined wetland conservation and
management guidelines for state agencies in South Dakota. These guidelines were
designed to provide state natural resource agencies with an overall view of wetland issues
for their use and a summary of programs available to encourage wetland conservation
and management. The hope was these programs would provide voluntary, incentive-
based options for landowners to maintain the multiple benefits wetlands provide to all
South Dakota residents. As well, the programs would encourage state government
agencies involved with projects involving wetlands to consider wetland impacts in their
policy and project development.
8.3.2.1.4 Minnesota Wetlands in Minnesota are regulated under the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) of
1991 to protect wetlands not protected under Department of Natural Resources’ public
waters permit program, and provide no net loss of Minnesota’s remaining wetlands.
Under the WCA, wetlands “must not be drained or filled, wholly or partially, unless
replaced by restoring or creating wetland areas of at least equal public value under an
approved replacement plan” (Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, 2003, p.11).
WCA does not apply to public waters wetlands, which are regulated by the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, 2004).
Public waters wetlands are all 3, 4, and 5-type wetlands [as defined by United States Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS)] not included within the definition of public waters, that are
ten (10) or more acres in size in unincorporated areas or 2.5 acres or more in incorporated
areas (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2016).
In Minnesota, wetlands are regulated under several agencies. The WCA does not
supersede other regulations by other agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, watershed
districts, and local governments (Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources 2004).
The local government unit (LGU) is the primary agency responsible for administering
WCA. The LGU is generally the city or county, but may be another entity such as a
watershed district or soil and water conservation district (Minnesota Board of Water and
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
73 | P a g e
Soil Resources 2004). A LGU may develop a comprehensive wetland protection and
management plan. The purpose of this kind of plan is to provide for alternative standards
for management of wetland resources, based on the needs and priorities of the LGU.
While local plans can adopt alternative standards for greater flexibility, there is also the
opportunity within these plans for the LGU to create additional requirements that are
more restrictive than WCA (Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources 2004).
The State of Minnesota developed a wetlands restoration strategy to provide a statewide
perspective and approach for restoration of wetlands. This framework encourages state
and federal agencies, local government units, and non-governmental organizations to
combine and coordinate efforts to achieve the shared goal of net gains in wetland
functional benefits (Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources 2009). The vision is
that “Minnesotans will enjoy significant improvements in habitat, water quality, surface
water flows, and ground water interactions that are attributable to wetlands restoration”
(Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources 2009, p.1).
8.3.2.1.5 Iowa As with several of the states examined in this report, Iowa has no state wetland policy,
act, or related legislation, aside from federal regulations. Unlike other states, the Iowa
Wetland Management District (WMD) encompasses the full extent of the PPR in Iowa.
The Iowa WMD was developed in partnership with the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources. The Iowa WMD aims to conserve, restore, and expand grassland and wetland
habitat to manage a natural biodiversity of native flora and abundance of waterfowl,
migratory birds, and other native fauna, as well as promote understanding, appreciation,
and support for the Iowa WMD. Stewardship and understanding of the southern PPR and
its native ecosystems to visitors and local residents is also involved (FWS, 2014).
8.3.3 Ramsar Convention
The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, commonly referred to as the
Ramsar Convention, of February 2, 1971 is an international treaty with 163 member
nations (as of 2013). The mission of the Ramsar Convention “is the conservation and
wise use of all wetlands through local, regional and national actions and international
cooperation, as a contribution towards achieving sustainable development throughout the
world” (Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2013, p.2). There are six Ramsar sites within the
PPR, with only one in the U.S., and one in Alberta (Beaverhill Lake). Though no Ramsar
sites are present in the Battle River and Sounding Creek watersheds, it is an important
international agreement to recognize in terms of wetland conservation. February 2nd has
also become World Wetlands Day, a day we can celebrate and help raise public
awareness about the importance and value of wetlands. Each year since 1997, the Ramsar
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
74 | P a g e
Secretariat provides materials for those interested in hosting activities and providing
educational material on World Wetlands Day.
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
75 | P a g e
9 Conservation and Restoration
Wetland conservation is always preferred over replacement or restoration. Conservation
and restoration of wetlands and surrounding uplands is a crucial part of wetland
management (Whited et al., 2000). A number of organizations have developed programs
and initiatives to help with both of these important aspects of wetland management across
Alberta and within the Battle River and Sounding Creek watersheds.
9.1 Wetland Restoration in Battle River and Sound Creek
Watersheds
Many programs exist that can be used individually and in concert to help conserve and
restore wetlands within the Battle River and Sounding Creek watersheds, such as ALUS
and DUC programs. There are also some opportunities in the new economy that could
provide incentive for landowners and managers.
Over 100 licensed wetland projects were licensed in the Battle River Basin in 2011,
including 27 structures in the Ribstone Creek subwatershed. Varieties of structures, such
as ditch plugs, were used to restore wetlands, and flood hay meadows for agriculture and
habitat improvement. These wetland projects will also aid groundwater recharge, and
river and creek flow augmentation during low flow (AESRD, 2014b).
A few agencies that facilitate wetland (and upland) restoration and conservation projects
within Alberta. Ducks Unlimited Canada, as a wetland restoration agent (WRA), delivers
wetland restoration opportunities and several incentive programs to landowners in the
Battle River and Sounding Creek watersheds. They have been active very in the Battle
River and Sounding Creek watersheds for many years, and have done many projects
throughout each of the watersheds (Figure 17a and b).
Within the Battle River watershed, Ducks Unlimited Canada has undertaken 452 projects,
securing over 137, 300 acres (including wetlands, surrounding upland, and other upland
habitat) (M. Simikian, personal communication, January 15, 2016). In Sounding Creek
watershed, 111 projects have been done, securing almost 34,000 acres (M. Simikian,
personal communication, January 19, 2016).
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
76 | P a g e
a)
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
77 | P a g e
b)
Figure 17. Ducks Unlimited Canada projects in the a) Battle River and b) Sounding
Creek watersheds. Blue ducks represent DUC habitat projects, Red flags represent
DUC funding events, and Orange duck feet represent education programs. The
green stippled areas are DUC/NAWMP priority areas. Maps provided by Ducks
Unlimited Canada, 2016.
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
78 | P a g e
DUC works with landowners to restore or conserve wetland and upland habitat through
several other programs. In addition to the Western Winter Wheat Initiative and Forage
Program, DUC offers several programs for landowners, including conservation
agreements, Wetland Restoration Lease program, and the Revolving Land Purchase
program. With the Wetland Restoration Lease program, DUC compensates landowners
for restored wetland areas under a 10-year lease based on current fair market value. As
part of DUC's program, the restored wetland areas stay under the management of the
landowner, where these areas can be hayed or grazed but cannot be drained, altered or
tilled during the term of the agreement. Through the Revolving Land Purchase program,
DUC purchases a piece of land, restores its wetlands and grasslands, and then makes it
available to potential land buyers on the real estate market after placing a conservation
easement (CE) on the title. The RLP program often works well with livestock producers.
As well, the Forage Program helps create critical habitat while converting cultivated
acres to perennial cover.
County of Vermillion River also a designated wetland restoration agent, and has
facilitated several wetland projects within the Battle River watershed with their
relationship with ALUS. In their part of the watershed, they have restored over 7 acres of
wetland, 202 acres of upland, and conserved 228 acres of wetland (C. Elder, personal
communication, April 12, 2016). Additional counties and organization within the Battle
River and Sounding Creek watersheds have the potential to become wetland restoration
agents, as well as continue the possibilities of wetland conservation and restoration
throughout the watershed.
9.2 Reverse Auctions
Most program options for restoring wetlands include conservation easements, land trusts,
enhanced forage conversion programs, and land purchases or donations. Though not
currently widely used in Canada, reverse auctions, or conservation auctions, have been
successfully used in Australia, Europe, and the United States for habitat conservation
(Latacz-Lohmann & Hodge 2003; Reichelderfer & Boggess, 1988; Selman et al 2008;
Stoneham et al 2003; White & Burton 2005). A couple pilot programs have been done, or
are being done, in Canada, notably in Saskatchewan (Hill et al., 2011) and Alberta
(Alberta Land Institute, 2015) to determine the best approach in using this tool
specifically for wetland restoration in the Canadian Prairies.
9.3 Prioritising Wetlands and Regional Wetland Objectives
Each type of wetland has different hydrological and ecological functions (Stewart &
Kantrud, 1971). As such, “ecological integrity of the prairie landscape needs to be
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
79 | P a g e
understood in the context of a wetland complex, rather than individual wetlands (Winter,
1989; Euliss et al., 2004)” (Hayashi et al., 2016, p. 8). Maintaining this regional
perspective will not only help conserve a diversity of wetlands and habitats, but also
hydrological and ecological connectivity (Amezaga et al., 2002).
As development continues, an important element of wetland management is development
of proactive regional and watershed-based wetland management objectives, and
determining which wetlands are vital to meet those objectives. These objectives would
help inform protection, conservation, and restoration activities based on a combination of
acreage and ecosystem function and services that address ecological, social and economic
values (Alberta Water Council, 2008b). Regional wetland objectives should provide
“steps toward identifying and acting on opportunities to protect wetlands of exceptional
value; identifying areas suitable for wetland restoration, construction, or enhancement;
and managing impacts to existing wetlands” (Alberta Water Council, 2008b, p.13) and be
integrated into watershed and land use planning, policy, and management processes. In
agricultural watersheds, such as the Battle River and Sounding Creek watersheds,
identifying wetlands or restoration sites to address certain functions on a sub-watershed
scale may be a valuable approach (Zedler, 2003).
As mentioned in Section 8.2.1.2, NAWMP has begun work in Alberta to develop
regional wetland management objectives, though how regions are to be delineated is still
to be decided. As a leader in wetland education, science, and management across North
America, NAWMP is well positioned to start addressing inter-provincial and
international regional wetland objectives. WPACs, municipalities, academia, utility
companies, transportation and infrastructure representatives, and tourism representatives
should all be involved in the development of any wetland objectives to ensure ecological,
social, and economic viability of goals.
Recently, the EPA has developed a tool for decision-makers in the United States using
the Rapid Benefits Indicators (RBI) approach. This is a process for assessing wetland
restoration using non-monetary/social benefits indicators of ecosystem restoration
(Mazzotta et al., 2016). This approach, among other uses, helps to prioritize restoration
projects and sites, especially in urban areas.
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
80 | P a g e
9.4 Wetland Mapping
Some mapping of wetlands has been completed for the Battle River and Sounding Creek
basins, but it is not complete. As the basis on much wetland management planning,
having accurate and current data and maps is crucial. However, these are often hard to
obtain due to financial and time constraints. Though ground-truthing is an essential
aspect of all wetland research and fundamental in wetland management, this method is
time and labour intensive. Studies suggest that the use of small, unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs) may be effective tools to gather data and map wetlands (O’Brien, 2016). Using
UAVs with near infrared light remote sensing, this approach can advance landscape
understanding, and could provide a precise, accessible, and affordable wetland data
collection method (O’Brien, 2016). Additional application of this technique at a more
local level should be considered as a part of wetland management moving forward.
9.5 Carbon offset credits
New market-based tools are increasingly used to integrate costs associated with decreases
in ecosystem services into decision-making and influencing behaviour of citizens (The
Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity [TEEB], 2011), and many have been
discusses in this report. There is work being done regarding carbon-offset credits for
wetland conservation and restoration. Since wetlands are generally considered carbon
sinks (see section 5.5), carbon offsetting schemes represent an interesting option to find
additional financing for wetland conservation or enhancement (Russi et al., 2013).
Most existing research and methodology for carbon offsets and wetlands is focused on
creation (Hansen, 2009) or restoration (Gardner & Fox, 2013; Louisiana Coastal
Protection and Restoration Authority, 2014; Tierra Resources, 2013; UNEP & CIFOR,
2014) of wetlands, and do not include conservation. All resources focused on coastal
wetlands and estuaries. Since it is difficult to quantify carbon sequestration services for
restored wetlands, as this function develops over time, carbon credits for wetland
conservation may be more feasible in the near future.
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
81 | P a g e
10 Conclusion
With the development of the Alberta Wetland Policy implementation and work done
through NAWMP, municipalities, and other wetland partners, new strategies for
managing wetlands in the Battle River and Sounding Creek watersheds are forthcoming.
All watershed stakeholders need to be involved to ensure the sustainable wetland
management now and for the future.
10.1 Data Gaps and Future Directions
10.1.1 Wetland Inventories
Without accurate inventory data, the wetland component of watershed planning is
hindered, and the setting of wetland objectives, targets and thresholds more difficult.
Wetlands inventories should be completed for all areas of the Battle River and Sounding
Creek watersheds. In Alberta’s White Zone, high resolution, historic and current aerial
photography is typically used to determine the change in wetland area over time.
Commonly referred to as the “Comprehensive” or “Drained” wetland inventory, this
product differs from previous inventory methods in that it can accurately capture drained
and altered wetlands, thereby accurately measuring wetland loss. This method does not
typically classify wetlands remotely, but classification data can be added through
inclusion of field observations.
As an example of this inventory methodology and its application, the Iron Creek sub-
watershed was inventoried in 2005. The resulting data was utilized to develop a
cartographic representation of wetland impacts and a wetland impact model as a product
of the broader Water for Life Inventory. The model incorporated baseline wetland
inventory collected for the entire sub-watershed based on 1963 photography, and the
process repeated for current conditions using 2005 photography. With representations of
the abundance and distribution of wetland features from the two time periods, a
geoprocessing model was developed that would assign impact categories to each wetland
basin. The model output characterizes the current state of wetland resources and the
distribution of wetland impacts across the entire sub-watershed. These data provide a
valuable resource for targeting wetland conservation and restoration initiatives, and
support further research into the hydrologic and ecological consequences of the impacts.
This level of wetland inventory and mapping is fundamental to planning, decision-
making, objective setting, and implementation in watershed and land use planning
initiatives. Setting appropriate wetland retention and restoration objectives depend on
development of these high-resolution inventories.
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
82 | P a g e
The Alberta Water Research Institute (AWRI) Wetland Health team was developing
wetland condition/ health assessment methods and tools in the Beaver Hills watershed,
within the NSRP area. Wetlands along a disturbance gradient (including pristine
wetlands, natural wetlands in agriculture and other human affected landscapes, restored
wetlands, stormwater treatment ponds) were surveyed. Work is being done on scaling
this information to the regional level using GIS that could be used to inform wetland
assessment methods in the NSRP, including the Battle River watershed (Barr, 2011).
10.1.2 Land Use Planning
A no-net-loss objective for the basin should be adopted as a sustainable approach. This
should be incorporated into all planning initiatives including municipal plans and the
North Saskatchewan Regional Plan (and the forthcoming Red Deer Regional Plan) to be
developed under the Land Use Framework.
Regardless of the level land use planning occurs at, ensuring land use planning
safeguards the ecological, societal, and economic value and function of wetlands and is
considerate of the key functions and strategically important location of wetlands is
imperative.
10.1.3 Restoration and Conservation
In regards to overall for restoration, conservation, and compensation, there are some
overall BMPs that should be considered in all projects, and in wetland alteration
approvals:
Due to the cost impact and social expectations of farmers regarding wetlands,
agricultural crop producers would like more discussion pertaining to
compensation for retaining and replacing wetlands and subsequent reduced land
values (Graymore & McBride, 2013)
Stronger and less lenient wetland alteration approvals at the provincial
government level (Clare et al., 2011)
Stricter enforcement of rural impacts to wetlands.
Systematic and systemic planning for wetland conservation in advance of
development
Avoid or minimize impacts on ephemeral and temporary wetlands so as to
maintain the important functions they provide, in particular those relating to
wildlife habitat (Hayashi et al., 2003)
Restoration and conservation actions need to capture the full range of wetland
types, areas, pond permanence, and other wetland values that occurred historically
within the watershed. Maintaining hydrodiversity also maintains biodiversity
(van der Kamp & Hayashi, 2009).
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
83 | P a g e
Future compensation for wetland impacts accrued within the watershed should be
applied within the basin (preference given to biogeographically similar areas) and
be located as near as is practical to the wetland where impact occurred.
Compensation criteria should be based on the landowners’ ability to recoup costs.
Emphasis on conservation and avoidance over minimizing impact or replacement.
Encourage conservation of existing wetland complexes including associated
upland areas and ephemeral wetlands are kept intact or restored, ecologically
functional, appreciated, and valued (Amezaga et al., 2002; Whited et al., 2000).
Additional restoration agents should be created throughout the province.
Other policy advice and management guidelines are discussed in the accompanying
documents Wetlands Management: Policy Advice, and Wetland Management:
Implementation Guidelines.
10.2 Summary
Over the next century, wetlands and their riparian and upland ecosystems will play
crucial roles in determining the vulnerability and resilience of natural and human systems
to climate change, as well as capacity of these systems to adapt. Additionally, wetland
ecosystems themselves are likely to become more vulnerable to climate change and land
use impacts. However, given the critical role of wetland ecosystem functions on the
landscape, as well as the strong links between wetland ecosystems and human well-
being, change in how we view and live with wetlands is needed. The need for planned
adaptation and management of and for wetlands in the landscape mosaic will be
strengthened as the importance of many wetland ecosystem functions, goods and services
grows in social values, and with a changing climate. Consequently, wetland ecosystems
have become the focus of significant adaptation worldwide.
It is in the best interest of all watershed stakeholders to be proactive in managing the use
of and impacts to our wetlands. Dialogue about challenges, mitigation, and adaptation
must be undertaken to ensure wetlands are able to maintain their function and value for
generations to come.
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
84 | P a g e
Literature Cited
Adams, G., Buteau, P., Dignard, N., Grondin, P., Jeglum, J., Keys, D., Mills, G., Price, J.,
Rothwell, R., Rubec, C., Selby, C., Veldhuis, H., Warner, B., Wells, D., and
Zoltai, S. (1997). The Canadian Wetland Classification System, 2nd edition.
Edited by B.G. Warner and C.D.A. Rubec. National Wetlands Working Group,
Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. Retrieved
from http://nawcc.wetlandnetwork.ca/Wetland%20Classification%201997.pdf
Adamus, P.R. 2011. Manual for the Wetland Ecosystem Services Protocol for the United
States (WESPUS). Retrieved from
https://www.novascotia.ca/nse/wetland/docs/Manual_WESPUS.pdf
Adamus, P.R. 2013. Wetland Ecosystem Services Protocol for Southern Alberta
(WESPAB). Prepared for Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource
Development, Government of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. Retrieved from
http://people.oregonstate.edu/~adamusp/Alberta_PrairieWetlands_Assessment_M
ethod/WESPAB_Manual_31July2013.pdf
Alberta Conservation Association. (2011). Amphibians on my land. Retrieved from
http://www.ab-
conservation.com/downloads/avamp/aca_amphibians_on_my_land.pdf
Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). (2011). Directive 056: Energy development
applications and schedules. Retrieved from http://www.aer.ca/rules-and-
regulations/directives/directive-056
Alberta Energy Regulator. (2013). Integrated standard and guidelines – Enhanced
Approval Process (EAP). Retrieved from http://aep.alberta.ca/forms-maps-
services/enhanced-approval-process/eap-manuals-guides/default.aspx
Alberta Environment. (2003). Focus on wetlands. Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta
Environment. Retrieved from
http://www.brocku.ca/virtualmuseum/riveroflife/wetlands.pdf
Alberta Environment. (2004). A guide to the code of practice for pits. Edmonton, Alberta:
Queens Printer. Retrieved from http://aep.alberta.ca/lands-forests/land-
industrial/legislation-guidelines.aspx
Alberta Environment and Parks. (2014). Guide to assessing permanence of wetland
basins. Land Policy Branch, Policy and Planning Division. 28 pp. Retrieved from
http://aep.alberta.ca/water/programs-and-services/wetlands/default.aspx
Alberta Environment and Parks. (2015). Watershed resiliency and restoration program.
Retrieved from http://aep.alberta.ca/water/programs-and-services/watershed-
resiliency-and-restoration-program/default.aspx
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
85 | P a g e
Alberta Environment and Parks. (2016a). Don’t let it loose. Retrieved from
http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/invasive-species/aquatic-invasive-species/dont-
let-it-loose.aspx
Alberta Environment and Parks. (2016b). Motorized. Retrieved from
http://aep.alberta.ca/recreation-public-use/recreation-on-public-
land/motorized.aspx
Alberta Environment and Parks. (2016c). Wetlands. Retrieved from
http://aep.alberta.ca/lands-forests/shorelands/wetlands.aspx
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD). (2009). South
Saskatchewan Region – wetlands: Facts at your fingertips. Retrieved from
http://wsow.brbc.ab.ca/reports/SSRP-Wetlands.pdf
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. (2012a). Alberta Northern
Leopard Frog Recovery Plan, 2010-2015. Alberta Environment and Sustainable
Resource Development, Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No.22. Edmonton,
AB. 34 pp. Retrieved from http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-at-
risk/species-at-risk-publications-web-resources/amphibians/
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. (2012b). Stepping back
from the water: A beneficial management practices guide for new development
near water bodies in Alberta's settled region. Calgary, Alberta: Government of
Alberta. Available at http://environment.alberta.ca/04100.html
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. (2013). Alberta wetland
policy. Water Policy Branch, Policy and Planning Division, Edmonton, AB.
Retrieved from http://aep.alberta.ca/water/programs-and-
services/wetlands/alberta-wetland-policy.aspx
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. (2014a). Agriculture
watershed enhancement program & watershed resiliency and restoration
program. Retrieved from http://aep.alberta.ca/water/programs-and-
services/watershed-resiliency-and-restoration-program/
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. (2014). Approved water
management plan for the Battle River basin (Alberta). Alberta Environment and
Sustainable Resource Development Planning Report. Retrieved from
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/orders/orders_in_council/2014/714/2014_29
9.html
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
86 | P a g e
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. (2015). Alberta wetland
classification system. Water Policy Branch, Policy and Planning Division,
Edmonton, AB. Retrieved from
http://www.waterforlife.alberta.ca/documents/ClassificationSystem-Jun01-
2015.pdf
Alberta Environmental Protection. (1999). Stormwater management guidelines for the
Province of Alberta. Municipal Program Development Branch, Environmental
Sciences Division, Edmonton, AB. Retrieved from
http://aep.alberta.ca/water/programs-and-services/municipal-wastewater-and-
storm-water-management-
program/documents/StormwaterManagementGuidelines-1999.pdf
Alberta Invasive Plants Council. (2012). Water invaders: Plants that can change
Alberta`s waters and wetlands. Retrieved from http://www.invasiveplants.ab.ca/
Alberta Land Institute. (2015). How can we restore your wetland? Retrieved from
http://www.albertalandinstitute.ca/research/research-projects/project/wetlands
Alberta NAWMP Partnership. (2015). Alberta NAWMP Partnership 2014-2015 Progress
Review: April 2014 to March 2015. Ducks Unlimited Canada, Edmonton, AB.
Alberta NAWMP-066. 20 pp. Retrieved from
http://www.abnawmp.ca/news/2016/feb/22/our-2014-2015-progress-review-now-
available/
Alberta Sand & Gravel Association (ASGA). (2015). Regulation. Retrieved from
http://www.asga.ab.ca/resources-regulation.asp
Alberta Transportation. (2010). Rules & regulations applying to small vehicles. Retrieved
from
http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType41/Production/small_vehicl
e_booklet_final.pdf
Alberta Urban Municipalities Association. (2013). 2013 Municipal water policy on
wetlands. AUMA Policy Paper 2013.A1. Retrieved from
https://auma.ca/advocacy-services/programs-initiatives/water-
management/watershed-management/wetlands
Alberta Water Council. (2008a). Recommendations for a new Alberta wetland policy.
Edmonton, Alberta. Retrieved from
http://www.awchome.ca/Projects/WetlandPolicy/tabid/103/Default.aspx
Alberta Water Council. (2008b). Recommendations for a new Alberta wetland policy
implementation plan. Edmonton, Alberta. Retrieved from
http://www.awchome.ca/Projects/WetlandPolicy/tabid/103/Default.aspx
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
87 | P a g e
Alberta Water Resources Commission. (1993a). Beyond prairie potholes: A draft policy
for managing Alberta’s peatlands and non-settled area wetlands. Retrieved from
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/104078#/summary
Alberta Water Resources Commission. (1993b). Wetland management in the settled area
of Alberta: An interim policy. Retrieved from
http://www.environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/6169.pdf
Alberta Wetland Policy. (2016). Migratory Birds Convention Act (1994). Retrieved from
http://www.wetlandpolicy.ca/migratory-birds-convention-act-1994/
Amezaga, J.M., Santamaría, L., & Green, A.J. (2002). Biotic wetland connectivity –
supporting a new approach for wetland policy. Acta Oecologica, 23, 213–222.
doi: 10.1016/S1146-609X(02)01152-9
Ambrose, N. 2010. Riparian Health Summary, Final Report, Cooking Lake – Blackfoot
Grazing, Wildlife and Provincial Recreation Area. Alberta Riparian Habitat
Management Society (Cows and Fish). Retrieved from
https://www.albertaparks.ca/media/3194168/Cooking%20Lake%20-
%20Blackfoot%20Comm%20Report%202010%20FINAL.pdf
Ambrose, N., Ehlert, G., & Spicer-Rawe, K. (2009). Riparian health assessment for
lakes, sloughs, and wetlands - Field Workbook Second Edition. Modified from
Fitch, L., B. W. Adams, and G. Hale, 2001. Riparian Health Assessment for
Streams and Small Rivers - Field Workbook. Cows and Fish program. Graphcom
Printers Ltd: Lethbridge, Alberta. Available from
http://cowsandfish.org/publications/assessment.html
Anderson, H.L. (2013). Habitat use by the wood frog (Lithobates sylvaticus (LeConte,
1825)) within pothole wetlands modified by beaver (Castor canadensis Kuhl,
1820) in east-central Alberta (Master’s thesis). University of Alberta, Edmonton,
Alberta. Retrieved from
https://era.library.ualberta.ca/files/cf95jc42f#.WEBkxH3eNQM
Anderson, J.C., Carlson, J.C., Low, J.E. Challis, J.K., Wong, C.S., Knapp, C.W., &
Hanson, M.L. (2013). Performance of a constructed wetland in Grand Marais,
Manitoba, Canada: Removal of nutrients, pharmaceuticals, and antibiotic
resistance genes from municipal wastewater. Chemistry Central Journal, 7, 1-15.
doi: 10.1186/1752-153X-7-54
Anderson, N.L., Paszkowski, C.A., & Hood, G.A. (2014). Linking aquatic and terrestrial
environments: can beaver canals serve as movement corridors for pond-breeding
amphibians? Animal Conservation, 18, 287–294. doi: 10.1111/acv.12170
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
88 | P a g e
Association of State Wetland Managers. (2015). North Dakota state wetland program
summary. Retrieved from
http://www.aswm.org/pdf_lib/state_summaries/north_dakota_state_wetland_prog
ram_summary_083115.pdf
Atkinson, M. M. & Coleman, W.D. (1992). Policy networks, policy communities and the
problems of governance. Governance, 5(2), 154-180. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-
0491.1992.tb00034.x
Badiou, P., McDougal, R., Pennock, D., & Clark, B. (2011). Greenhouse gas emissions
and carbon sequestration potential in restored wetlands of the Canadian prairie
pothole region. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 19, 237–256. doi:
10.1007/s11273-011-9214-6
Baldwin, R.F., Calhoun, A.J.K., & DeMaynadier, P.G. (2006). Conservation planning for
amphibian species with complex habitat requirements: A case study using
movements and habitat selection of the wood frog Rana sylvatica. Journal of
Herpetology, 40, 443–454. doi: 10.1670/0022-
1511(2006)40[442:CPFASW]2.0.CO;2
Barr, M. (2011). State of wetlands (North Saskatchewan Region). Retrieved from
http://www.abnawmp.ca/media/protected/dfd1cd1e-90b6-4f2f-87e1-
5015c18c8c04.pdf
Batt, B.D.J., Anderson, M.G., Anderson, C.D., and Caswell, F.D. (1989). The use of
prairie potholes by North American ducks. In: van der Valk, A.G. (Ed.) Northern
prairie wetlands (pp. 204-227). Ames, Iowa, USA: Iowa State University Press.
Battle River Watershed Alliance (BRWA). (2011). Our battle: State of the Battle River
and Sounding Creek watersheds report 2011. Camrose Alberta: Battle River
Watershed Alliance. Retrieved from
http://www.battleriverwatershed.ca/publications
Battle River Watershed Alliance (BRWA). (2012). Battle River watershed management
planning process: Phase two terms of reference February 2012. Camrose Alberta:
Battle River Watershed Alliance. Retrieved from
http://www.battleriverwatershed.ca/publications
Bedford, B.L. (1999). Cumulative effects on wetland landscapes: Links to wetland
restoration in the United States and southern Canada. Wetlands, 19, 775-788.
Bedford, B.L., & Preston, E.M. (1988). Developing the scientific basis for assessing
cumulative effects of wetland loss and degradation on landscape functions: Status,
perspectives, and prospects. Environmental Management, 12, 751-771.
Bergström, J.C., Stoll, J.R., Titre, J.P., & Wright, V.L. (1990). Economic value of
wetland-based recreation. Ecological Economics, 2, 129-147.
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
89 | P a g e
Boyer, T., & Polasky, S. (2004). Valuing urban wetlands: A review of non-market
valuation studies. Wetlands, 24, 744–755.
Brakhage, D. (n.d.). The positive effects of drought. Retrieved from
http://www.ducks.org/Conservation/National/The-Positive-Effects-of-Drought
Brander, L., Brouwer, R., and Wagtendonk, A. (2013). Economic valuation of regulating
services provided by wetlands in agricultural landscapes: A meta-analysis
Ecological Engineering, 56, 89– 96. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.12.104
Bridgham, S.D., Megonigal, J.P., Keller, J.K., Bliss, N.B., & Trettin, C. (2006). The
carbon balance of North American wetlands. Wetlands, 26(4), 889-916. doi:
10.1672/0277-5212(2006)26[889:TCBONA]2.0.CO;2
Bromley, C.K., & Hood, G.A. (2013). Beavers (Castor canadensis) facilitate early access
by Canada geese (Branta canadensis) to nesting habitat and areas of open water in
Canada’s boreal wetlands. Mammalian Biology, 78, 73–77. doi:
10.1016/j.mambio.2012.02.009
Bruneau, S. (2015a). BRWA’s approach to policy research and development. Retrieved
from http://www.battleriverwatershed.ca/publications
Bruneau, S. (2015b). Understanding the policy context for riparian areas of the Battle
River and Sounding Creek watersheds. BRWA WMP Report. Camrose, Alberta:
Battle River Watershed Alliance. Retrieved from
http://www.battleriverwatershed.ca/publications
Brunet, N.N. (2011). Prairie pothole drainage and water quality. (Master’s thesis).
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Retrieved from
https://ecommons.usask.ca/handle/10388/etd-04112011-140210
Brunet, N.N., & Westbrook, C.J. (2012). Wetland drainage in the Canadian prairies:
Nutrient, salt and bacteria characteristics. Agriculture, Ecosystems &
Environment, 146, 1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2011.09.010
Butts, W.L. (2001). Beaver ponds in upstate New York as a source of anthropophilic
mosquitoes. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, 17, 85–86.
Butts, W.L. (2004). Changes in distribution and abundance of mosquito populations in an
ecological research tract over a 35-year history. Journal of the American
Mosquito Control Association, 20, 319–320.
Camrose County, By-law No 1142 Land Use Bylaw. August 26, 2014. Retrieved from
http://www.county.camrose.ab.ca/content/2015-mdp-lub-review-0
CFB/ASU Wainwright – Base Environment. (2013). CFB/ASU Wainwright wetlands &
riparian areas management plan.
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
90 | P a g e
Chan, K.M.A., Satterfield, T., & Goldstein, J. (2012). Rethinking ecosystem services to
better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics, 74, 8–18. doi:
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011
Chase, J.M., & Shulman, R.S. (2009). Wetland isolation facilitates larval mosquito
density through the reduction of predators. Ecological Entomology, 34, 741–747.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2311.2009.01128.x
Cai, Y.-B., Zhang, H., Pan, W.-B., Chen, Y.-H., & Wang, X.-R. (2013). Land use pattern,
socio-economic development, and assessment of their impacts on ecosystem
service value: study on natural wetlands distribution area (NWDA) in Fuzhou
city, southeastern China. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 185, 5111–
5123. doi: 10.1007/s10661-012-2929-x
City of Camrose & Camrose County. (2016). Camrose source water protection plan.
Retrieved from http://www.county.camrose.ab.ca/content/bylaws
City of Edmonton. (2012). City of Edmonton wetland strategy. Retrieved from
https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/FINAL_Wetland_Strategy
_low_res.pdf
City of Calgary. (2004). Calgary wetland conservation plan. Retrieved from
http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Parks/Pages/Planning-and-Operations/Protecting-
Calgarys-wetlands.aspx
City of Saskatoon. (2013a). Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 8769. Revised.
November 4, 2013. Retrieved from
https://www.saskatoon.ca/sites/default/files/8769.pdf
City of Saskatoon. (2013b). Wetland Policy C09-041. Final Approved. November 4,
2013. Retrieved from https://www.saskatoon.ca/sites/default/files/documents/city-
clerk/civic-policies/C09-041.pdf
City of Winnipeg. (2007). Ecologically significant natural lands strategy & policy.
Retrieved from
http://winnipeg.ca/publicworks/parksOpenSpace/NaturalistServices/PDF/ESNL.p
df
Clare, S., Krogman, N., & Lemphers, N. (2011). Where is the avoidance in the
implementation of wetland law and policy? Wetlands Ecological Management,
19, 165-182. doi: 10.1007/s11273-011-9209-3
Coleman, W. D. & Skogstad, G. (Eds.). (1990). Policy communities and public policy in
Canada. Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman.
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
91 | P a g e
Conley, F.M., van der Kamp, G. (2001). Monitoring the hydrology of Canadian prairie
wetlands to detect the effects of climate change and land use changes.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 67, 195–215. doi:
10.1023/A:1006486607040
Convention on Biological Diversity Secretariat. (n.d.). The convention on biological
diversity. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/
Cortus, B., Jeffrey, S., Unterschultz, J.R., & Boxall, P.C. (2010). The economics of
wetland drainage and retention in Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 59, 109–126. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2010.01193.x
Cows and Fish. (2013). An overview of beaver management for agricultural producers.
Alberta Riparian Habitat Management Society: Lethbridge, Alberta.
http://www.cowsandfish.org/pdfs/Beaver-Matrix-FINAL.pdf
Cox, K.W., & Campbell, L. (1997). Global climate change and wetlands: Issues and
awareness. Environmental Protection Service, Environment Canada. Retrieved
from http://nawcc.wetlandnetwork.ca/Global%20Climate%20Change.pdf
Dahl, T.E. 2014. Status and trends of prairie wetlands in the United States 1997 to
2009.U.S. Department of the Interior; Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological
Services, Washington, D.C. (67 pages). Retrieved from www.fws.gov/wetlands
DeBeer, C.M., Wheater, H.S., Carey, S.K., & Chun, K.P. (2016). Recent climatic,
cryospheric, and hydrological changes over the interior of western Canada: a
review and synthesis. Hydrology Earth System Science, 20, 1573–1598. doi:
10.5194/hess-20-1573-2016
Ducks Unlimited. (n.d.). Preserve our prairies initiative. Retrieved from
http://www.ducks.org/Conservation/DU-Conservation-Initiatives/Preserve-Our-
Prairies-Initiative
Ducks Unlimited Canada. (2006). Natural values: Linking the environment to the
economy: Biodiversity (Report No. 5). Retrieved from http://www.aipa.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2013/11/nv5_bio.pdf
Ducks Unlimited Canada, Louisiana-Pacific Canada Ltd., FPInnovations, Weyerhaeuser
Company, Spruce Products Ltd. (2014). Operational guide for forest road
wetland crossings. Version 1.0. 44p. Retrieved from
http://www.ducks.ca/resources/industry/operational-guide-for-forest-road-
wetland-crossings/
Environment Canada. (2013a). How much habitat is enough? 3rd ed. Environment
Canada, Toronto, Ontario. Retrieved from
http://ec.gc.ca/Publications/default.asp?lang=En&xml=1B5F659B-B931-4F37-
A988-3DD73DF656B7
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
92 | P a g e
Environment Canada. (2013b). Management plan for the Northern Leopard Frog
(Lithobates pipiens), Western Boreal/Prairie Populations, in Canada. Species at
Risk Act Management Plan Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. iii + 28 pp.
Retrieved from http://www.registrelep-
sararegistry.gc.ca/document/default_e.cfm?documentID=1929
Environmental Law Institute. (2008). Planner’s guide to wetland buffers for local
governments. Retrieved from
http://www.eaaflyway.net/documents/resources/ELC-Pl-Guide_Wetland-buf.pdf
Erwin, K.L. (2009). Wetlands and global climate change: the role of wetland restoration
in a changing world. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 17, 71–84 doi:
10.1007/s11273-008-9119-1
European Commission. (2013). Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No.
485/2013. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32013R0485
Fang, X. & Pomeroy, J.W. (2008). Drought impacts on Canadian prairie wetland snow
hydrology. Hydrological Processes 22, 2858-2873. doi: 10.1002/hyp.7074
Fang, X., Pomeroy, J.W., Westbrook, C., Guo, X., Minke, A., & Brown, T. (2010).
Prediction of snowmelt derived streamflow in a wetland dominated prairie basin.
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 14, 991–1006. doi: 10.5194/hess-14-991-
2010
Fisheries (Alberta) Act, RSA 2000, c. F-16). Edmonton: Alberta Queen’s Printer.
Retrieved from www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/F16.pdf
Fitch, L., Adams, B., & O’Shaughnessy, K. (2003). Caring for the green zone: Riparian
areas and grazing management – Third Edition. Cows and Fish. Graphcom
Printers Ltd.: Lethbridge, AB. Available from
http://www.cowsandfish.org/publications/management.html
Forcey, G.M., Linz, G.M., Thogmartin, W.E., & Bleier, W.J. (2007). Influence of land
use and climate on wetland breeding birds in the Prairie Pothole region of Canada.
Canadian Journal of Zoology, 85, 421-436. doi: 10.1 139lZ07-005
Forrest, A.S.M. (2010). Created stormwater wetlands as wetland compensation and a
floristic quality approach to wetland condition assessment in central Alberta.
(Master’s thesis). University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. Retrieved from
https://era.library.ualberta.ca/
Fritzell, E.K. (1989). Mammals in prairie wetland. In: A.G. van der Valk, (Ed.), Northern
prairie wetlands (pp. 268-301), Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
93 | P a g e
Gabor, T.S., North, A.K., Ross, L.C.M., Murkin, H.R., Anderson, J.S., & Raven, M.
(2004). Natural values-The importance of wetlands and upland conservation
practices in watershed management: Functions and values for water quality and
quantity. Ducks Unlimited Canada. Available from
http://www.wetlandnetwork.ca/pg_ResourceDetails.php?int_ResourceId=1309
Gardner, R.C., & Fox, J. (2013). The legal status of environmental credit stacking.
Ecology Law Quarterly, 40, 713-757. doi: 10.15779/Z38DZ83 Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/elq/vol40/iss4/1
Gascoigne, W.R., Hoag, D., Koontz, L., Tangen, B.A., Shaffer, T.L., & Gleason, R.A.
(2011). Valuing ecosystem and economic services across land-use scenarios in the
Prairie Pothole Region of the Dakotas, USA. Ecological Economics, 70, 1715-
1725. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.04.010
Gleason, R.A., Laubhan, M.K., and Euliss, N.H., Jr., eds., 2008, Ecosystem services
derived from wetland conservation practices in the United States Prairie Pothole
Region with an emphasis on the U.S. Department of Agriculture Conservation
Reserve and Wetlands Reserve Programs: U.S. Geological Professional Paper
1745, 58 p. Retrieved from http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1745/
Government of Alberta. (2003). Water for Life: Alberta’s Strategy for Sustainability.
Government of Alberta. (Publication No. 1/955). Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta
Environment. Retrieved from http://www.waterforlife.alberta.ca/01548.html
Government of Alberta. (2011a). Ecosystem services approach pilot on wetlands: An
exploration of approaches to understand cultural services and benefits to
ecosystem service assessments. Edmonton, Alberta: Government of Alberta.
Retrieved from
http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/listing.asp?page=1&searchtype=asset&txtsearc
h=ecosystem%20services
Government of Alberta. (2011b). Ecosystem services approach pilot on wetlands:
Integrated assessment report. Edmonton, Alberta: Government of Alberta.
Retrieved from http://www.environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/8493.pdf
Government of Alberta. (2011c). Recommended land use guidelines for protection of
selected wildlife species and habitat within grassland and parkland natural
regions of Alberta. Available at http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/wildlife-land-
use-guidelines/default.aspx
Government of Alberta. (2012). Lower Athabasca regional plan 2012-2022. Retrieved
from
https://landuse.alberta.ca/RegionalPlans/LowerAthabascaRegion/Pages/default.as
px
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
94 | P a g e
Government of Alberta. (2014). South Saskatchewan regional plan 2014-2024. Retrieved
from
https://landuse.alberta.ca/RegionalPlans/SouthSaskatchewanRegion/Pages/default
.aspx
Government of Alberta. (2015a). Alberta wetland identification and delineation directive.
Water Policy Branch, Alberta Environment and Parks. Edmonton, Alberta.
Retrieved from http://aep.alberta.ca/water/programs-and-
services/wetlands/documents/IdentificationDelineationDirectiveJun2015.pdf
Government of Alberta. (2015b). Alberta wetland mitigation directive. Water Policy
Branch, Alberta Environment and Parks. Edmonton, Alberta. Retrieved from
http://aep.alberta.ca/water/programs-and-services/wetlands/alberta-wetland-
policy-implementation.aspx
Government of Alberta. (2015c). Alberta wetland policy implementation in the white
area – agriculture factsheet. Retrieved from
http://www.aaaf.ab.ca/uploads/pdf/AB_Wetland_Policy_Implement_fact_sheet_2
015_FINAL_2.pdf
Government of Alberta. (2015d). Alberta Wetland Rapid Evaluation Tool –Actual
(ABWRET- A) Manual. Water Policy Branch, Alberta Environment and Parks.
Edmonton, Alberta. Retrieved from http://aep.alberta.ca/water/programs-and-
services/wetlands/documents/WetlandRapidEvaluationTool-Jun2015.pdf
Government of Canada. (1991). The federal policy on wetland conservation. Ottawa,
Ontario: Environment Canada. Canadian Wildlife Service. Retrieved from
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/CW66-116-1991E.pdf
Government of Manitoba. (2014a). Manitoba’s surface water management strategy.
Retrieved from
http://gov.mb.ca/waterstewardship/questionnaires/surface_water_management/inde
x.html
Government of Manitoba. (2014b). Towards sustainable drainage: A proposed new
regulatory approach. Retrieved from
http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/waterstewardship/licensing/drainage/index.htm
l
Government of Saskatchewan. (n.d.). Farm stewardship program. Retrieved from
https://www.saskatchewan.ca/business/agriculture-natural-resources-and-
industry/agribusiness-farmers-and-ranchers/growing-forward-2/environment-
programs/farm-stewardship-program
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
95 | P a g e
Gray, M.J., Smith, L.M., & Brenes, R. (2004). Effects of agricultural cultivation on
demographics of southern high plains amphibians. Conservation Biology, 18, 1368-
1377. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00089.x
Graymore, M.LM., & McBride, D. (2013). Socio-ecological value of wetlands: the
dilemma of balancing human and ecological water needs. Australasian Journal of
Environmental Management, 20, 225-241. doi: 10.1080/14486563.2013.816252
Greenway, M. (2005). The role of constructed wetlands in secondary effluent treatment
and water reuse in subtropical and arid Australia. Ecological Engineering, 25,
501–509. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2005.07.008
Gren, I.-M., Folke, C., Turner, K., & Batemen, I. (1994). Primary and secondary values
of wetland ecosystems. Environmental and Resource Economics, 4, 55-74.
Grygoruk, M., Mirosław-Świątek, D., Chrzanowska, W., & Ignar, S. (2013). How much
for water? Economic assessment and mapping of floodplain water storage as a
catchment-scale ecosystem service of wetlands. Water, 5, 1760-1779. doi:
10.3390/w5041760
Gundserson, L.H., Carpenter, S.R., Folke, C., Olsson, P., & Peterson, G. (2006). Water
RATs (resilience, adaptability, and transformability) in lake and wetland social-
ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11, 1-9. doi: 10.5751/ES-01556-110116
Haak, D. (2015). Sustainable agricultural land management around wetlands on the
Canadian Prairies. Retrieved from http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/science-and-
innovation/agricultural-practices/soil-and-land/riparian-areas/sustainable-
agricultural-land-management-around-wetlands-on-the-canadian-
prairies/?id=1231514224747
Haddock, R. (2015). Beaver restoration across boundaries. Miistakis Institute: Calgary,
Alberta. Retrieved from http://rockies.ca/project_info2.php?id=93
Hannon, S.J., Paszkowski, C.A., Boutin, S., DeGroot, J., Macdonald, S.E., Wheatley, M.,
& Eaton, B.R. (2002). Abundance and species composition of amphibians, small
mammals, and songbirds in riparian forest buffer strips of varying widths in the
boreal mixedwood of Alberta. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 32, 1784-
1800. doi: 10.1139/X02-092
Hansen, L.T. (2009). The viability of creating wetlands for the sale of carbon offsets.
Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 34, 350–365.
Hayashi, M., & Rosenberry, D.O. (2002). Effects of ground water exchange on the
hydrology and ecology of surface water. Groundwater 40, 309-316. doi:
10.1111/j.1745-6584.2002.tb02659.x
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
96 | P a g e
Hayashi, M., & van der Kamp, G. (2000). Simple equations to represent the volume–
area–depth relations of shallow wetlands in small topographic depressions.
Journal of Hydrology, 237, 74-85. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00300-0
Hayashi, M., van der Kamp, G., & Rosenberry, D.O. (2016). Hydrology of prairie
wetlands: Understanding the integrated surface-water and groundwater processes.
Wetlands, 36(Suppl 2), 237- 254. doi: 10.1007/s13157-016-0797-9
Hayashi, M., van der Kamp, G., & Rudolph, D.L. (1998a). Water and solute transfer
between a prairie wetland and adjacent uplands: 1. Water balance. Journal of
Hydrology, 207, 42-55.
Hayashi, M., van der Kamp, G., & Rudolph, D.L. (1998b). Water and solute transfer
between a prairie wetland and adjacent uplands, 2. Chloride cycle. Journal of
Hydrology 207, 56–67.
Hayashi, M., van der Kamp, G., & Schmidt, R. (2003). Focused infiltration of snowmelt
water in partially frozen soil under small depressions. Journal of Hydrology, 270,
214–229. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1694(02)00287-1
Heimlich, R.E., Wiebe, K.D., Claassen, R., Gadsby, D., & House, R.M. (1998). Wetlands
and agriculture: private interests and public benefits. Resource Economics
Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Agricultural Economic Report No. 765. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43284826_Wetlands_and_agriculture_p
rivate_interests_and_public_benefits
Hein, L., van Koppen, K., de Groot, R.S., & van Ierland, E.C. (2006). Spatial scales,
stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 57,
209– 228. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.005
Higginbotham, N., Connor, L., Albrecht, G., Freeman, S., & Agho, K. (2007). Validation
of an environmental distress scale. EcoHealth, 3, 245-254. doi: 10.1007/s10393-
006-0069-x
Hill, M.R.J., McMaster, D.G., Harrison, T., Hershmiller, A., & Plews, T. (2011). A
reverse auction for wetland restoration in the Assiniboine River watershed,
Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 59, 245–258. doi:
10.1111/j.1744-7976.2010.01215.x
Hoeven, J., & Dwelle, T. (2014). North Dakota’s water quality monitoring strategy:
2008-2019. North Dakota Department of Health: Bismarck, North Dakota.
Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
10/documents/nd-wpp.pdf
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
97 | P a g e
Hood, G.A., & Bayley, S.E. (2008). Beaver (Castor canadensis) mitigate the effects of
climate on the area of open water in boreal wetlands in western Canada.
Biological Conservation, 141, 556-567. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.12.003
Hood, G.A., & Larson, D.G. (2014a). Beaver-created habitat heterogeneity influences
aquatic invertebrate assemblages in boreal Canada. Wetlands, 34, 19–29. doi:
10.1007/s13157-013-0476-z
Hood, G.A., & Larson, D.G. (2014b). Ecological engineering and aquatic connectivity: a
new perspective from beaver-modified wetlands. Freshwater Biology, 60, 198–
208. doi:10.1111/fwb.12487
Hood, G.A., & Yarmey, N. (2015). Mitigating human-beaver conflicts through adaptive
management. Prepared for Beaver County. Retrieved from
www.beaver.ab.ca/public/download/documents/13293
Horwitz, P., & Finlayson, M. (2011). Wetlands as settings for human health:
incorporating ecosystem services and health impact assessment into water
resource management. Bioscience, 61, 678-688. doi: 10.1525/bio.2011.61.9.6
Hough, P., & Robertson, M. (2009). Mitigation under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act: Where it comes from, what it means. Wetlands Ecological Management, 17,
15–33. doi: 10.1007/s11273-008-9093-7
Houlahan, J.E., & Findlay, C.S. (2003). The effects of adjacent land use on wetland
amphibian species richness and community composition. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 60, 1078-1094. doi: 10.1139/F03-095
Hubbard, D.E., & Linder, R.L. (1986). Spring runoff retention in prairie pothole
wetlands. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 41,122-125.
Huel, D., Harrison, T., Foster, A., & Pawana, N. (2000). Managing Saskatchewan
wetlands – A landowner’s guide. Regina, Saskatchewan: Saskatchewan Wetland
Conservation Corporation. Retrieved from:
http://www.southsaskriverstewards.ca/ckfinder/userfiles/files/ManagingSaskatche
wanWetlands.pdf
Jackson, M.J., Gow, J.L., Evelyn, M.J., Meikleham, N.E., McMahon, T.J.S., Koga, E.,
Howay, T.J., Wang, L., & Yan, E. (2009). Culex mosquitoes, West Nile virus, and
the application of innovative management in the design and management of
stormwater retention ponds in Canada. Water Quality Research Journal of
Canada, 44, 103-110.
Johnson, C.W. (1984). An economic valuation of South Dakota wetlands as a recreation
resource for resident hunters. (Master’s Thesis). South Dakota State University,
Brookings, South Dakota. Retrieved from
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/handle/34043
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
98 | P a g e
Johnson, D.H. (2001). Habitat fragmentation effects on birds in grasslands and wetlands:
A critique of our knowledge. Great Plains Research 11, 211-31.
Johnson, W.C., Millett, B.V., Gilmanov, T., Voldseth, R.A., Guntenspergen, G.R., &
Naugle, D.E. (2005). Vulnerability of northern prairie wetlands to climate change.
BioScience, 55, 863-872. doi: 10.1641/0006-
3568(2005)055[0863:VONPWT]2.0.CO;2
Johnson, W.C., Werner, B., Guntenspergen, G.R., Voldseth, R.A., Millett, B., Naugle,
D.E., Tulbure, M., Carroll, R.W.H., Tracy, J., & Olawsky, C. (2010). Prairie
wetland complexes as landscape functional units in a changing climate.
BioScience, 60, 128–140. doi: 10.1525/bio.2010.60.2.7
Kao, C.M., Wang, J.Y., Chen, K.F., Lee, H.Y., & Wu, M.J. (2002). Non-point source
pesticide removal by a mountainous wetland. Water Science and Technology, 46,
199–206.
Kayranli, B., Scholz, M., Mustafa, A., & Hedmark, Å. (2010). Carbon storage and fluxes
within freshwater wetlands: A critical review. Wetlands, 30,111–124. doi:
10.1007/s13157-009-0003-4
Kinsley, C. (2015). Development of knowledge translation tools to foster the uptake of
constructed wetland technologies to treat rural wastewaters. Canadian Water
Network. Retrieved from http://www.cwn-rce.ca/assets/End-User-Reports/Agri-
Food/Kinsley/CWN-EN-Kinsley-2014-5pager-Web.pdf
Kirby, J., Giles, N., Davidson, N., Owen, M., & Spray, C. (2004). Waterbirds & wetland
recreation handbook: A review of issues and management practice. The Wildfowl
& Wetlands Trust: Gloucestershire, UK. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/44130262_Waterbirds_and_wetland_rec
reation_handbook_a_review_of_issues_and_management_practice
Kolozsvary, M.B., & Swihart, R.K. (1999). Habitat fragmentation and the distribution of
amphibians: patch and landscape correlates in farmland. Canadian Journal of
Zoology, 77, 1288-1299.
Korven, H.C., & Heinrichs, D.H. (1971). Slough drainage and cropping. (Agriculture
Canada Pub. No. 1440). Ottawa, Ontario: Agriculture Canada.
Kurz, D.J., McGinty, N.A., Stankavich, S.A., Nowakowski, A.J., & Smith, G.A. (2013).
Restored wetlands can support mammalian assemblages comparable to those in
nonmitigated reference wetlands. The American Midland Naturalist, 170, 260-
273. doi: 10.1674/0003-0031-170.2.260
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
99 | P a g e
Kwasniak, A. (2016). Alberta wetlands: A law and policy guide. Calgary, Alberta:
Canadian Institute and Resources Law.
Latacz-Lohmann, U. & Hodge, I. (2003). European agri-environmental policy for the
21st century. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 47
(1): 123–39. doi: 10.1111/1467-8489.00206
Lee, K.N. (1993). Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating science and politics for the
environment. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Lehtinen, R.M., Galatowitsch, S.M & Tester, J.R. (1999). Consequences of habitat loss
and fragmentation for wetland amphibian assemblages. Wetlands, 19, 1-12.
Lilley, J., & Labatiuk, C. (2001) Edmonton’s draft guidelines for constructed stormwater
wetlands. Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue Canadienne des
Ressources Hydriques, 26, 195-210. doi: 10.4296/cwrj2602195
Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority. (2014). Methodology for coastal
wetland creation. Approved VCS Methodology VM0024. Retrieved from
http://database.v-c-s.org/methodologies/methodology-coastal-wetland-creation-
v10
Lynch-Stewart, P., Neice, P., Rubec, C., & Kessel-Taylor, I. (1996). The federal policy
on wetland conservation: Implementation guide for land managers. Ottawa,
Ontario: Environment Canada. Canadian Wildlife Service. Retrieved from
http://nawcc.wetlandnetwork.ca/Fed%20Policy%20Wetland%20Conserv_Implem
ent%20Guide%20for%20Fed%20Land%20Mgrs.pdf
Main, A.R., Headley, J.V., Peru, K.M., Michel, N.L., Cessna, A.J., Morrissey, C.A.
(2014). Widespread Use and Frequent Detection of Neonicotinoid Insecticides in
Wetlands of Canada’s Prairie Pothole Region. PLoS one, 9, e92821- e92821. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0101400
Main, A.R., Michel, N.L., Headley, J.V., Peru, K.M., & Morrissey, C.A. (2015).
Ecological and landscape drivers of neonicotinoid insecticide detections and
concentrations in Canada’s prairie wetlands. Environmental Science &
Technology, 49, 8367–8376. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b01287
Maltby, E., & Acreman, M.C. (2011). Ecosystem services of wetlands: Pathfinder for a
new paradigm. Hydrological Sciences Journal – Journal des Sciences
Hydrologiques, 56, 1341-1359. doi: 10.1080/02626667.2011.631014
Mann, J., Grant, C., & Kulshreshtha, S. (2014). Economics of a pricing mechanism to
compensate rural land owners for preserving wetlands. Canadian Water
Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques, 39, 462–471.
doi: 10.1080/07011784.2014.965037
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
100 | P a g e
Marton, J.M., Creed, I.F., Lewis, D.B., Lane, C.R., Basu, N.B., Cohen, M.J., & Craft,
C.B. (2015). Geographically isolated wetlands are important biogeochemical
reactors on the landscape. BioScience, 65, 408–418. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biv009
Mazzotta, M., Bousquin, J., Ojo, C., Hychka, K., Gottschalk Druschke, C., Berry, W., &
McKinney, R. (2016). Assessing the benefits of wetland restoration: A rapid
benefit indicators approach for decision makers. United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA/600/R-16/084). Retrieved from
https://www.epa.gov/water-research/rapid-benefit-indicators-rbi-approach
McCauley, L.A., Anteau, M.J., Post van der Burg, M. & Wiltermuth, M.T. (2015). Land
use and wetland drainage affect water levels and dynamics of remaining wetlands.
Ecosphere, 6, 1-22. doi: 10.1890/ES14-00494.1.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being:
Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.html
Millett, B.V., Johnson, W.C., & Guntenspergen, G.R. (2009). Climate trends of the North
American prairie pothole region 1906–2000. Climatic Change, 93, 243–267. doi:
10.1007/s10584-008-9543-5
Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. (2016). Draft: A wetland conservation
strategy for Ontario 2016-2030. Retrieved from
http://apps.mnr.gov.on.ca/public/files/er/wetland-conservation-strategy.pdf
Minke, A.G., Westbrook, C.J., & van der Kamp, G. (2010). Simplified volume-area-
depth method for estimating water storage of prairie potholes. Wetlands, 30, 541-
551. doi: 10.1007/s13157-010-0044-8
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. (2003). Wetlands regulation in
Minnesota. Retrieved from http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/regulation.html
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. (2004). The Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act manual. Retrieved from
https://www.leg.state.mn.us/docs/2007/other/070605.pdf
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. (2009). Wetlands restoration strategy: A
framework for prioritizing efforts in Minnesota. Retrieved from
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/wetlands/index.html
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. (2016). Definition of public waters.
Retrieved from
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/pwpermits/pw_definition.
html
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
101 | P a g e
Mitchell, B. (1997). Resource and Environmental Management. Waterloo, ON: Longman
Press.
Mitsch, W.J., & Gosselink, J.G. (2000). The value of wetlands: Importance of scale and
landscape setting. Ecological Economics, 35, 25-33. doi: 10.1016/S0921-
8009(00)00165-8
Mitsch W.J., & Gosselink, J.G. (2007) Wetlands (4th ed.) New York: Wiley.
Mitsch, W.J., & Hernandez. M.E. (2013). Landscape and climate change threats to
wetlands of North and Central America. Aquatic Sciences, 75, 133–149. doi:
10.1007/s00027-012-0262-7
Montana Wetland Council. (2013). Priceless resources: A strategic framework for
wetland and riparian area conservation and restoration in Montana 2013-2017.
Retrieved from
http://deq.mt.gov/Portals/112/Water/WPB/Wetlands/StategicFramework2013-
2017.pdf
Morrissey, C.A., Mineau, P., Devries, J.H., Sanchez-Bayo, F., Liess, M., Cavallaro,
M.C., & Liber, K. (2015). Neonicotinoid contamination of global surface waters
and associated risk to aquatic invertebrates: A review. Environment International,
74, 291–303. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2014.10.024
Murkin, H.A. (1998). Freshwater functions and values of prairie wetlands. Great Plains
Research, 8, 3-15.
Musamba, E.B., Boon, E.K., Ngaga, Y.M., Giliba, R.A., & Dumulinyi, T. (2012). The
recreational value of wetlands: Activities, socio-economic activities and
consumers’ surplus around Lake Victoria in Musoma Municipality, Tanzania.
Journal of Human Ecology, 37, 85-92.
National Wetlands Working Group. (1988). Wetlands of Canada. Ecological Land
Classification Series, No. 24. Ottawa, Ontario: Environment Canada and
Polyscience Publications Inc.
Native Plant Solutions. (2012). Naturalized stormwater systems. Retrieved from
http://www.nativeplantsolutions.ca/what-we-do/naturalized-stormwater-systems/
Natural Resources Canada. (2015). The atlas of Canada. Retrieved from
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/earth-sciences/geography/atlas-canada
Nature Conservancy of Canada. (2015). Wild hog. Retrieved from
http://www.natureconservancy.ca/en/what-we-do/resource-centre/invasive-
species/wild-hog.html
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
102 | P a g e
Naugle, D.E. (1997). Habitat area requirements of prairie wetland birds in South Dakota
(Master’s Thesis). South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota.
Retrieved from http://pubstorage.sdstate.edu/wfs/thesis/Naugle-David-E-PhD-
1997-2.pdf
Needham, M. D., & Morzillo, A. T. (2011). Landowner incentives and tolerances for
managing beaver impacts in Oregon. Final project report for Oregon Department
of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board
(OWEB). Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Department of Forest
Ecosystems and Society. Retrieved from
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/living_with/beaver.asp
Nelner, T.B., & Hood, G.A. (2011). Effect of agriculture and presence of American
beaver Castor canadensis on winter biodiversity of mammals. Wildlife Biology,
17, 326-336. doi: 10.2981/09-097
North American Wetlands Conservation Council (Canada). (n.d.). The North American
Wetlands Conservation Act. Retrieved from:
http://nawcc.wetlandnetwork.ca/nawca.html
North Saskatchewan River Basin Council. (2008). North Saskatchewan River source
water protection plan. Retrieved from
https://www.wsask.ca/Global/Water%20Info/Watershed%20Planning/NorthSaska
tchewanRiverWatershedSourceWaterProtectionPlan.pdf
Nova Scotia Environment. (2011). Nova Scotia wetland conservation policy. Retrieved
from http://www.novascotia.ca/nse/wetland/conservation.policy.asp
O’Brien, T. (2016). Small unmanned aerial vehicles as remote sensors: An effective data
gathering tool for wetland mapping (Master’s thesis). University of Guelph,
Guelph, Ontario. Retrieved from
https://atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/handle/10214/9660
Odum, E.P. (1979). The value of wetlands: A hierarchical approach. In Greeson, P.E.
Clark, J.R., & Clark, J.E. (Eds.) Wetland functions and value: The state of our
understanding (pp. 16-25). Minneapolis, MN: American Water Resources
Association Technical Publication.
Off-highway Vehicles Act, RSNS 2010, c. 323, s.1. Available from
http://nslegislature.ca/legc/statutes/off-highway%20vehicles.pdf
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
103 | P a g e
Ouren, D.S., Haas, Christopher, Melcher, C.P., Stewart, S.C., Ponds, P.D., Sexton, N.R.,
Burris, Lucy, Fancher, Tammy, and Bowen, Z.H., 2007, Environmental effects of
off-highway vehicles on Bureau of Land Management lands: A literature
synthesis, annotated bibliographies, extensive bibliographies, and internet
resources: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2007-1353, 225 p.
Retrieved from https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1353/report.pdf
Partington, M., Gillies, C., Gingras, B., Smith, C., & Morissette, J. (2016). Resource
roads and wetlands: A guide for planning, construction and maintenance.
(Special Publication SP-520E). Pointe-Claire, QC: FPInnovations. Retrieved from
https://fpinnovations.ca/ResearchProgram/forest-operations/resource-
roads/Pages/guide-for-planning-construction-and-maintenance.aspx
Pattison, J., Boxall, P.C., & Adamowicz, W.L. (2011). The economic benefits of wetland
retention and restoration in Manitoba. Canadian Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 59, 223-244. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2010.01217.x
Pattison, J.K., Gabor, S., & Scott, T. (2013). A business case for wetland conservation
and restoration in the settled areas of Alberta Vermilion River subwatershed case
study. Commissioned by the Ducks Unlimited Canada. Retrieved from
http://www.ducks.ca/assets/2012/06/DUC-AB-Business-Case_Final.pdf
Phelan, J., Jones, P., & Matthews, K. (2015). Montana Prairie Wetlands and
Intermittent/Ephemeral Streams: Hydrologic Needs Assessment for Healthy
Watersheds. RTI Project Number 0213541.004.001.004. Report to the US
Environmental Protection Agency. Healthy Watersheds Program, Washington,
D.C. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
11/documents/151016mt_final_report_july2015.pdf
Pollock, M.M., G. Lewallen, K. Woodruff, C.E. Jordan and J.M. Castro (Editors) 2015.
The Beaver Restoration Guidebook: Working with Beaver to Restore Streams,
Wetlands, and Floodplains. Version 1.02. United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
Portland, Oregon. 189 pp. Online at:
https://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/promo.cfm?id=177175812
Pomeroy, J.W., Fang, X., Westbrook, C., Minke, A., Guo, X., & Brown, T. (2010).
Prairie hydrological model study final report. Centre for Hydrology Report No. 7,
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon.
http://www.usask.ca/hydrology/Reports.php
Pope, S.E., Fahrig, L., & Merriam, H.G. (2000). Landscape complementation and
metapopulation effects on leopard frog populations. Ecology, 81, 2498-2508. doi:
10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[2498:LCAMEO]2.0.CO;2
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
104 | P a g e
Prairie Habitat Joint Venture. 2014. Prairie Habitat Joint Venture Implementation Plan
2013-2020: The Prairie Parklands. Report of the Prairie Habitat Joint Venture.
Environment Canada, Edmonton, AB. Retrieved from
http://www.phjv.ca/pdf/PHJV%20Implemenetation%20Plan%20PRAIRIE%20P
ARKLAND%202013-2020%20Final.pdf
Prince Edward Island (P.E.I.) Fisheries, Aquaculture and Environment. (2007). A wetland
conservation policy for Prince Edward Island. Retrieved from
http://www.gov.pe.ca/photos/original/2007wetlands-po.pdf
Rafiq, R., Alam, S., Rahman, M., & Islam, I. (2014). Conserving wetlands: Valuation of
indirect use benefits of a wetland of Dhaka. International Journal of
Environmental Science and Development, 5, 64-69. doi:
10.7763/IJESD.2014.V5.452
Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2013. The Ramsar Convention Manual: A guide to the
Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971), 6th ed. Ramsar Convention
Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland. Retrieved from http://www.ramsar.org/about/the-
ramsar-convention-and-its-mission
Reichelderfer, K., & Boggess, W.G. (1988). Government decision making and program
performance: The case of the conservation reserve program. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 70, 1–11.
Renton, D.A., Mushet, D.M., & DeKeyser, E.S. (2015). Climate change and prairie
pothole wetlands - mitigating water-level and hydroperiod effects through upland
management. (U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2015–
5004). Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey. Retrieved from
http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2015/5004/
Rocky View County. (2010). Wetland conservation and management policy. (Policy No.
420). Retrieved from
http://www.rockyview.ca/Government/Policies/InfrastructureOperations.aspx
Rooney, R. (2014, February 11). Wetland function and health: Assessment in service of a
new Albertan wetland policy [Video file]. Retrieved from
https://youtu.be/VqyrAfJh76Y
Rooney, R.C., Foote, L., Krogman, N., Pattison, J.K., Wilson, M.J., & Bayley, S.E.
(2015). Replacing natural wetlands with stormwater management facilities:
Biophysical and perceived social values. Water Research, 73, 17-28.
doi:10.1016/j.watres.2014.12.035
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
105 | P a g e
Ross, L.C.M., and Martz, D. (2013). Integrating natural wetlands and improving design
of naturalized storm water management facilities in the City of Edmonton:
Workshop guidebook. December 4th and 5th, Edmonton, AB. Retrieved from
http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/environmental_stewardship/wetlands-
workshop.aspx
Rozema, E.R., Rozema, L, R., & Zheng, Y. (2016). A vertical flow constructed wetland
for the treatment of winery process water and domestic sewage in Ontario,
Canada: Six years of performance data. Ecological Engineering, 86, 262-268. doi:
10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.11.006
Russi D., ten Brink P., Farmer A., Badura T., Coates D., Förster J., Kumar R. and
Davidson N. (2013) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Water
and Wetlands. IEEP, London and Brussels; Ramsar Secretariat, Gland. Retrieved
from http://www.teebweb.org/publication/the-economics-of-ecosystems-and-
biodiversity-teeb-for-water-and-wetlands/
Sadler, T.S. (2005). Town of Strathmore wetland conservation plan. Retrieved from
http://www.strathmore.ca/wetlands_policy
Sauchyn, D., Diaz, H., & Kulshreshtha, S. (2010). Conclusion. In D. Sauchyn, H. Diaz,
& S. Kulshreshtha (Eds.), The new normal: The Canadian Prairies in a changing
climate (pp. 353-361). Regina, Saskatchewan: Canadian Plains Research Center.
Selman, M., Greenhalgh, S., Taylor, M., & Guiling, J. (2008). Paying for environmental
performance: Potential cost savings using a reverse auction in program sign-up.
WRI Policy Note Environmental Markets No. 5. Washington, DC: World
Resources Institute. Retrieved from http://www.wri.org/publication/paying-
environmental-performance-2
Semlitsch, R.D. (1998). Biological delineation of terrestrial buffer zones for pond-
breeding salamanders. Conservation Biology, 12, 1113–1119.
Semlitsch, R.D., & Bodie, J.R. (2003). Biological criteria for buffer zones around
wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles. Conservation Biology,
17, 1219-1228. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.02177.x
Shook, K.R., & Pomeroy, J.W. (2011). Memory effects of depressional storage in
Northern Prairie hydrology. Hydrological Processes, 25, 3890-3898. doi:
10.1002/hyp.8381
Shutler, D., Mullie, A., & Clark, R.G. (2000). Bird communities of prairie uplands and
wetlands in relation to farming practices in Saskatchewan. Conservation Biology,
14, 1441-1451. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98246.x
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
106 | P a g e
Skinner, S. (in press). Policies and practices for non-native and invasive species
management. BRWA WMP Report. Camrose, Alberta: Battle River Watershed
Alliance.
Skogstad, G. (2005). Policy networks and policy communities: Conceptual evolution and
governing realities. University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario. Prepared for the
Workshop on “Canada’s Contribution to Comparative Theorizing” Annual
Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association University of Western
Ontario, London, Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-
2005/Skogstad.pdf
Smith, A.G., Stoudt, J.H., & Gollop, J.B. (1964). Prairie potholes and marshes. In:
Linduska, J.P. (Ed.) Waterfowl tomorrow (pp. 39-50). Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
Söderqvist, T., Mitsch, W.J., Turner, R.K. (2000). Valuation of wetlands in a landscape
and institutional perspective. Ecological Economics, 35, 1–6. doi: 10.1016/S0921-
8009(00)00163-4
South Dakota Interagency Wetlands Working Group. (2001). Wetland conservation and
management guidelines for South Dakota state agencies. SD Department of
Agriculture, SD Department of Environment and Natural Resources, SD
Department of Game, Fish and Parks, SD Department of Transportation: Pierre,
South Dakota. Retrieved from
https://sdda.sd.gov/legacydocs/Forestry/publications/PDF/wetlandmanagement.pd
f
Specht, E. (2015). Using beaver as a watershed management tool: Articulating Alberta’s
regulatory context. Unpublished manuscript, University of Alberta Augustana
Campus.
Stevens, C.E., Paszkowski, C.A, Foote, A.L. (2007). Beaver (Castor canadensis) as a
surrogate species for conserving anuran amphibians on boreal streams in Alberta,
Canada. Biological Conservation, 134, 1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.07.017
Stewart, A., Reedyk, S., Franz, B., Fromradas, K., Hilliard, C., & Hall, S. (2010). Field
manual on buffer design for the Canadian prairies. Agri-Environment Services
Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Retrieved from
http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/387724/publication.html
Stewart, R.E., & Kantrud, H.A. (1971). Classification of natural ponds and lakes in the
glaciated Prairie Region. Resource Publication 92, published by the Bureau of
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
57pp.
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
107 | P a g e
Stoneham, G., Ha, V.C.A., & Strappazzon, L. 2003. Auctions for conservation contracts:
An empirical examination of Victoria’s bushtender trial. The Australian Journal
of Agricultural and Resource Economics 47, 477–500. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
8489.2003.t01-1-00224.x
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) (2011), The Economics of
Ecosystems and Biodiversity in National and International Policy Making. Edited
by Patrick ten Brink. Earthscan, London and Washington. Retrieved from
http://www.teebweb.org/publication/teeb-in-national-and-international-policy-
making/
Thompson, J., & Young, D.A. (1992). The optimal use of prairie pothole wetlands: An
economic perspective. Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne
des ressources hydriques, 17, 365-372. doi: 10.4296/cwrj1704365
Tierra Resources. (2013). The nation’s first wetland carbon pilot 1. Retrieved from
http://tierraresourcesllc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Tierra-Luling-
description_PRINT-2.pdf
Tippie, S. (2010). Working with beaver for better habitat naturally. Wildlife 200 & The
Grand Canyon Trust. Retrieved from
http://www.rockies.ca/beavers/files/ut_workingBeaver2010.pdf
Town of Strathmore. (2007). Strathmore wetland conservation policy. (Policy No. 6605).
Retrieved from http://www.strathmore.ca/wetlands_policy
Turner, R.K., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., Söderqvist, T., Barendregt, A., van der Straaten,
J., Maltby, E., van Ierland, E.C. (2000). Ecological-economic analysis of
wetlands: scientific integration for management and policy. Ecological
Economics, 35, 7–23. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00164-6
UNEP and CIFOR 2014. Guiding principles for delivering coastal wetland carbon
projects. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya and Center for
International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia, 57pp. Retrieved from
http://www.unep.org/publications/
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (n.d.a). 2014 Farm Bill - Agricultural
conservation easement program – NRCS. Retrieved from
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/programs/easements/ace
p/?cid=stelprdb1242695
United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.b). Conservation reserve program.
Retrieved from https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-
programs/conservation-reserve-program/index
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
108 | P a g e
United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.c). Farmable wetlands program. Retrieved
from https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-
programs/farmable-wetlands/index
United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.d). Wetland conservation provisions
(swampbuster). Retrieved from
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/programs/alphabetica
l/camr/?cid=stelprdb1043554
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2015a). Clean water rule
factsheet. Retrieved from http://www2.epa.gov/cleanwaterrule
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2015b). Summary of the Clean Water
Act. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-
act
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2015c). What the Clean Water Rule
does. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/cleanwaterrule/what-clean-water-rule-
does
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2016a). National wetland condition
assessment. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/national-aquatic-resource-
surveys/nwca
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2016b). Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act: Memorandum of agreement. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/cwa-
404/memorandum-agreement
United States Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS). (2014). Iowa wetland management
district: Final comprehensive conservation plan. U.S. Department of the Interior
Bloomington, MN. Retrieved from
https://www.fws.gov/Midwest/planning/iowawetlands/index.html
United States Fish & Wildlife Service. (2016a). Migratory Bird Conservation
Commission. Retrieved from https://www.fws.gov/refuges/realty/mbcc.html
United States Fish & Wildlife Service. (2016b). North American wetlands conservation
act. Retrieved from https://www.fws.gov/birds/grants/north-american-wetland-
conservation-act.php
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. (2010). Utah beaver management plan 2010–2020.
DWR Publication 09-29. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources: Salt Lake City,
Utah. Retrieved from http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting-in-utah/hunting-
information/furbearer.html
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
109 | P a g e
Vance, L., & Chutz, J. (2016). Montana natural heritage program: Wetland program
plan. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-
03/documents/mtnhp_wetland_program_plan_2016-2020.pdf
Vance, L., S. Owen and J. Horton. 2013. Literature review: Hydrology-ecology
relationships in Montana Prairie wetlands and intermittent/ephemeral streams.
Report to the Cadmus Group and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT. 49 pp. plus appendices.
Retrieved from http://mtnhp.org/Reports.asp?key=4
van der Kamp, G., & Hayashi, M. (1998). The groundwater recharge function of small
wetlands in the semi-arid northern prairies. Great Plains Research, 8, 39-56.
van der Kamp, G., & Hayashi, M. (2009). Groundwater-wetland ecosystem interaction in
the semiarid glaciated plains of North America. Hydrogeology Journal, 17, 203–
214. doi: 10.1007/s10040-008-0367-1
van der Kamp, G., Hayashi, M. & Gallén, D. (2003). Comparing the hydrology of
grassed and cultivated catchments in the semi-arid Canadian prairies.
Hydrological Processes, 17, 559-575. doi: 10.1002/hyp.1157
Van Meter, K.J., & Basu, N.B. (2015). Signatures of human impact: size distributions
and spatial organization of wetlands in the Prairie Pothole landscape. Ecological
Applications, 25(2), 451–465. doi: 10.1890/14-0662.1
Venterink, H.O., Davidsson, T.E., K. Kiehl, K., & Leonardson, L. (2002). Impact of
drying and re-wetting on N, P and K dynamics in a wetland soil. Plant and Soil,
243, 119–130. doi: 10.1023/A:1019993510737
Water Security Agency. (2015). Agricultural water management strategy. Retrieved from
https://www.wsask.ca/Water-Programs/Agricultural-Drainage-/Agricultural-
Water-Management-Strategy/
Watmough, M., Ingstrup, D., Duncan, D., & Schinke, H. (2002). Prairie Habitat Joint
Venture Habitat Monitoring Program Phase 1: Recent habitat trends in NAWMP
targeted landscapes. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Technical
Report Series No. 391. Edmonton. 94p.
Werner, B.A, Johnson, W.C., & Guntenspergen, G.R. (2013). Evidence for 20th century
climate warming and wetland drying in the North American Prairie Pothole
Region. Ecology and Evolution, 3, 3471– 3482. doi: 10.1002/ece3.731
Western Winter Wheat Initiative. (n.d.). About western winter wheat initiative. Retrieved
from http://www.growwinterwheat.ca/winter-wheat-benefits-advantages/
Weston, M.A., Antos, M.J., & Glover, H.K. (2009). Birds, buffers and bicycles: A review
and case study of wetland buffers. The Victorian Naturalist, 126, 79-85.
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
110 | P a g e
Wetland Stewardship Partnership. (2010). A wetland action plan for British Columbia.
Retrieved from http://bcwetlands.ca/tools/wetland-action-plan/
White, B., & Burton, M. (2005). Measuring the efficiency of conservation auctions.
Proceedings of the 47th Annual Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics
Society Meetings, Fremantle, Western Australia, 11–14 February 2004.
White, J., & Gray, M. (2007). The riparian setback matrix model. Prepared for Lakeland
County. Edmonton, Alberta: Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd.
White, J.S., & Bayley, S.E. (1999). Restoration of a Canadian prairie wetland with
agricultural and municipal wastewater. Environmental Management, 24, 25–37.
White, J.S., Bayley, S.E., & Curtis, P.J. (1999). Sediment storage of phosphorus in a
northern prairie wetland receiving municipal and agro-industrial wastewater.
Ecological Engineering, 14, 127–138.
Whited, D., Galatowitsch, S., Tester, J.R., Schik, K., Lehtinen, R., & Husveth, J. (2000).
The importance of local and regional factors in predicting effective conservation-
Planning strategies for wetland bird communities in agricultural and urban
landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 49, 49-65. doi: 10.1016/S0169-
2046(00)00046-3
Wildlife Act, Revised Statutes of Alberta, (2000 Chapter W-10). Edmonton: Alberta
Queen’s Printer. Retrieved from http://www.qp.alberta.ca/570.cfm
Wilson, M.J., & Bayley, S.E. (2012). Use of single versus multiple biotic communities as
indicators of biological integrity in northern prairie wetlands. Ecological
Indicators, 20, 187-195. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.02.009
Wiltermuth, M.T. (2014). Influences of climate variability and landscape modifications
on water dynamics, community structure, and amphipod populations in large
prairie wetlands: Implication for waterbird conservation (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/36/70/3670216.html
Wolfe, J. (2006). Natural values: Linking the environment to the economy #6 – Wetlands.
Ducks Unlimited Canada: Stonewall, MB. Retrieved from
http://www.ducks.ca/assets/2012/06/nv6_wet.pdf
Woo, M-K., & Rowsell, R.D. (1993). Hydrology of a prairie slough. Journal of
Hydrology 146, 175–207.
Wray, H.E., & Bayley, S.E. (2006). A Review of Indicators of Wetland Health and
Function in Alberta's Prairie, Aspen Parkland and Boreal Dry Mixedwood
Regions. Environmental Policy Branch, Alberta Environment. Retrieved from
http://open.alberta.ca/publications/9780778567691
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
111 | P a g e
Wrubleski, D.A., and L.C.M. Ross. 2011. Aquatic Invertebrates of Prairie Wetlands:
Community Composition, Ecological Roles, and Impacts of Agriculture. In
Arthropods of Canadian Grasslands (Volume 2): Inhabitants of a Changing
Landscape. Edited by K. D. Floate. Biological Survey of Canada. pp. 91-116.
Yang, W., X. Wang, T.S. Gabor, L. Boychuk, and P. Badiou. (2008). Water quantity and
quality benefits from wetland conservation and restoration in the Broughton’s
Creek Watershed. Ducks Unlimited Canada Publication. 48 pp. Retrieved from
http://www.ducks.ca/assets/2012/06/broughtons.pdf
Zedler, J.B. (2003). Wetlands at your service: Reducing impacts of agriculture at the
watershed scale. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1, 65-72. doi:
WAYSRI]C
Zenner, G., & Hancock, A. (2012). An occasional drought is good for wetlands!
Retrieved from
http://www.iowadnr.gov/Portals/idnr/uploads/Hunting/Drought%20is%20a%20go
od%20thing%20for%20wetlands.pdf?ver=2012-09-13-122502-123
Zhang, D.Q., Jinadasa, K.B.S.N., Gersberg, R.M., Liu, Y., Ng, W.J., & Tan, S.K. (2014).
Application of constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment in developing
countries: A review of recent developments (2000-2013). Journal of
Environmental Management, 141, 116-131. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.03.015
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
112 | P a g e
Appendix A
Summary of Wetland Inventories in the Battle River and Sounding Creek Watersheds
Impact Basin
Count
% Count Hectares % Area
Roundhill
(1962-2003)
Parkland
51323 Ha
Altered
(Cultivation/Dugout)
4,896
46.58%
805.42
13.37%
Drained (Lost,
Altered,
Consolidated)
2,367
22.52%
3730.3
61.94%
Intact
3,248
30.90%
1486.4
24.68%
Total
10,511
100.00%
6022.12
100.00%
Wetaskiwin
(1962-2003)
Parkland
9979 Ha Altered
(Cultivation/Dugout)
941
35.82%
88.95
4.80%
Drained (Lost,
Altered,
Consolidated)
1,233
46.94%
1677.11
90.45%
Intact
453
17.24%
88.19
4.76%
Total
2,627
100.00%
1854.25
100.00%
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
113 | P a g e
Altered = no drain with riparian and aquatic vegetation absent or disturbed
Drained Altered = outlet drain with riparian and aquatic vegetation present
Consolidated = inlet drain with riparian and aquatic vegetation present
Lost = outlet drain riparian and aquatic vegetation absent
Intact = no drain with riparian and aquatic vegetation present.
Impact Basin
Count
% Count Hectares % Area
Iron Creek
(1963-2005)
Parkland
567479 Ha Altered
(Cultivation/Dugout)
129,949
61%
27,318.04
44%
Drained (Lost,
Altered,
Consolidated)
8,737
4%
14,289.65
23%
Intact
73,914
35%
20,842.09
33%
Total
212,600
100%
62,449.78
100%
Camrose
(1962-2003)
Parkland
32000 Ha Altered
(Cultivation/Dugout)
2,464
35.49%
239.47
6.50%
Drained (Lost,
Altered,
Consolidated)
2,222
32.01%
2960.51
80.30%
Intact
2,256
32.50%
486.63
13.20%
Total
6,942
100.00%
3686.61
100.00%
Policies and Practices for Wetland Management
March 2017
114 | P a g e
This is our battle: the
watershed we all share, and
the fight to maintain a healthy
environment, vibrant
communities and a stable
economy.
Battle River Watershed Alliance
Gateway Centre
4825 51 Street (2nd floor)
Camrose, Alberta T4V 1R9
1 888 672 0276
www.battleriverwatershed.ca
Connecting People to Place for Action